APA president advises pilots against using new body scanners
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Terra firma
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has to be all or nothing.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: The right side of the Pennines
Age: 73
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instead of X-rays to see if explosive is being carried, why not just a system that detonates any explosive device ?
The innocent would have nothing to fear, and the terrosists would be destroyed.
Simple.
( as has been said many times, the bad guys will do what they want, where they want, when they want, and there is NOTHING that we can do about that, all we're doing is slowing things down a bit for the bad guys as they have to work around every new idea and device we put in their way, and infuriating the innocent )
The innocent would have nothing to fear, and the terrosists would be destroyed.
Simple.
( as has been said many times, the bad guys will do what they want, where they want, when they want, and there is NOTHING that we can do about that, all we're doing is slowing things down a bit for the bad guys as they have to work around every new idea and device we put in their way, and infuriating the innocent )
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Overtheristan
Age: 54
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guest
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: In the shadow of R101
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not convinced by the argument that the human body would not attenuate the blast from an internal explosion, it is a simple fact that body tissue is very tough and takes significant energy to tear apart.
As to the suggestion that everyone must be made to pass through these scanners, what would happen if people decide that they've had enough and choose not to fly? It might be enough to convince people that they no longer wish to be part of the whole process.
I decided long ago that I do not wish to travel to a country that insists on taking my fingerprints, to me that is something done to criminals. If it turns out that I can't travel anywhere without submitting to these other indignities then I shall simply decide never to travel again, after all I don't need to.
As to the suggestion that everyone must be made to pass through these scanners, what would happen if people decide that they've had enough and choose not to fly? It might be enough to convince people that they no longer wish to be part of the whole process.
I decided long ago that I do not wish to travel to a country that insists on taking my fingerprints, to me that is something done to criminals. If it turns out that I can't travel anywhere without submitting to these other indignities then I shall simply decide never to travel again, after all I don't need to.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Rosterwilltell
Age: 68
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scan victim
Of course crews are a real thread to safety. A tiny bit of c4 in a tampon and we depart from this world.
Hell is below us and there's no scanner.
Tons of unchecked cargo.
Cargo is not subject to cancer, why not check this first.
Just an idea......
Hell is below us and there's no scanner.
Tons of unchecked cargo.
Cargo is not subject to cancer, why not check this first.
Just an idea......
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 45
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole charade is just stupid.
There are multiple ways of getting an explosive device on board an aircraft. Of course I'm not going to divulge them here, but having explosives stuffed into body cavities is not high up my list.
Profiling is the way forward, not body scanning.
There are multiple ways of getting an explosive device on board an aircraft. Of course I'm not going to divulge them here, but having explosives stuffed into body cavities is not high up my list.
Profiling is the way forward, not body scanning.
Guest
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: In the shadow of R101
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, the R101 airship, I can see its departure point from my back garden.
And I can assure you that I am entirely real, and refuse to submit to procedures as described.
And I can assure you that I am entirely real, and refuse to submit to procedures as described.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Near Puget Sound
Age: 86
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I flew as SLF out of DCA two weeks ago. While I was being screened, I observed that five people were pulled out for the full-body scans.
All were attractive young women.
Probably a coincidence.
Goldfish
All were attractive young women.
Probably a coincidence.
Goldfish
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't wish to put a damper on this discussion but we need to be realistic here. Without going into mathematical and chemical formulae, any substance that increases its volume by a factor of 15 with a detonation/expansion velocity of between 7000 and 9000 metres/second will not be slowed or deflected by the human body. It will be vapourised, totally, within the 1st 100th of a second after detonation. Trying to convince yourself that the human carrying the explosive will 'absorb' or 'attenuate' the blast is a false hope.
Just visualise 9000 metres in 1 second. Flesh and bones will not do anything to slow or stop such a rapid expansion of the gaseaous products of the explosion. I have no idea of the size of hole a person sitting in a window seat would produce when vapourised in such a manner but it will almost certainly be big enough to cause considerable structural damage.
Whatever else this discussion raises, we need to keep in mind the aim of these restrictive and intrusive measures; prevention of an in-flight detonation of an explosive. Whatever it takes...or do you have a better idea?
I'm not saying these machines are the whole answer but they are an effective deterrent at least. But they are only effective if they are seen to be used correctly and in my humble opinion, that means everyone passes through them or they don't fly.
Stand outside on a bright day for a few minutes and you absorb the same amount of dangerous and harmful rays from the sun. Sit in your living room/cockpit and the same occurs from radio/tv/phone/Google snoopers/WiFi etc.
Just visualise 9000 metres in 1 second. Flesh and bones will not do anything to slow or stop such a rapid expansion of the gaseaous products of the explosion. I have no idea of the size of hole a person sitting in a window seat would produce when vapourised in such a manner but it will almost certainly be big enough to cause considerable structural damage.
Whatever else this discussion raises, we need to keep in mind the aim of these restrictive and intrusive measures; prevention of an in-flight detonation of an explosive. Whatever it takes...or do you have a better idea?
I'm not saying these machines are the whole answer but they are an effective deterrent at least. But they are only effective if they are seen to be used correctly and in my humble opinion, that means everyone passes through them or they don't fly.
Stand outside on a bright day for a few minutes and you absorb the same amount of dangerous and harmful rays from the sun. Sit in your living room/cockpit and the same occurs from radio/tv/phone/Google snoopers/WiFi etc.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ionising radiation
Crew (flight & Cabin) are already subjected to enough ionising radiation during flight without additional radiation in screening. The US and EU classify them as radiation workers and they fall into the top 5% of such workers for exposure. Look here for some information.
As their work already involves exposure any additional unnecessary (ie when you have a choice) exposure ought to be avoided. Radiation workers in other industries are educated about managing their exposure and to minimise exposure both at work and outside work. I suspect this education doesn't occur for crew. I strongly encourage crew to learn about their exposure from flight, consider other sources (like background radiation in your home town or medical procedures) and whether you can afford the risks of an ionising radiation scan.
If you work as crew on an aircraft, please educate yourself about your radiation exposure and carefully consider the APA president's advice.
As their work already involves exposure any additional unnecessary (ie when you have a choice) exposure ought to be avoided. Radiation workers in other industries are educated about managing their exposure and to minimise exposure both at work and outside work. I suspect this education doesn't occur for crew. I strongly encourage crew to learn about their exposure from flight, consider other sources (like background radiation in your home town or medical procedures) and whether you can afford the risks of an ionising radiation scan.
If you work as crew on an aircraft, please educate yourself about your radiation exposure and carefully consider the APA president's advice.
Originally Posted by rubik101
A few sobering facts about explosives;
PanAm flight 103 was brought down by 250g or half a pound of Semtex.
HMX, the explosive of choice in the 21st Century is very much more powerful than Semtex.(the exact factor is in question but it is at least twice as powerful)
Octanitrocubane is a recently developed product which is again, many times more powerful than HMX. (thankfully it is very difficult to make)
From this it can be seen that even 100g of such an explosive, which would be more than enough to blow a large hole in a fuselage, can very easily be concealed in a bodily cavity. The example of a tampon sized sample of the explosive would weigh about 80-120g.
The human body would do almost nothing to dissipate or lessen the effect of either of the two latter explosives. The surrounding tissue, meaning most of the body, would vapourise under the intense pressure developed in the milliseconds following the blast.
The example of the Saudi assasination attempt is not valid as the explosive was certainly neither of those mentioned above.
Whether you agree with the use of the scanners as a crew member or not, you will find no assurance that the current scanning/pat-down system is able to detect a device as described. If a terrorist opts for the pat-down then it is almost impossible to see how such a device would be detected.
There should be no option for passengers, they should all be made to go through the body scanner. If that policy were to be implemented then it is hard to see how aircrew could justify a simple pat-down check. It has to be all or nothing.
PanAm flight 103 was brought down by 250g or half a pound of Semtex.
HMX, the explosive of choice in the 21st Century is very much more powerful than Semtex.(the exact factor is in question but it is at least twice as powerful)
Octanitrocubane is a recently developed product which is again, many times more powerful than HMX. (thankfully it is very difficult to make)
From this it can be seen that even 100g of such an explosive, which would be more than enough to blow a large hole in a fuselage, can very easily be concealed in a bodily cavity. The example of a tampon sized sample of the explosive would weigh about 80-120g.
The human body would do almost nothing to dissipate or lessen the effect of either of the two latter explosives. The surrounding tissue, meaning most of the body, would vapourise under the intense pressure developed in the milliseconds following the blast.
The example of the Saudi assasination attempt is not valid as the explosive was certainly neither of those mentioned above.
Whether you agree with the use of the scanners as a crew member or not, you will find no assurance that the current scanning/pat-down system is able to detect a device as described. If a terrorist opts for the pat-down then it is almost impossible to see how such a device would be detected.
There should be no option for passengers, they should all be made to go through the body scanner. If that policy were to be implemented then it is hard to see how aircrew could justify a simple pat-down check. It has to be all or nothing.
1) a device as small as a Tampon, carried inside a body cavity of your choice, can easily be enough to destroy an airliner
2) thus ....everybody should be forced to walk through a body scanner, which can not detect such a device.
I don't quite follow to be honest...
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't quite follow to be honest...
If it turns out that I can't travel anywhere without submitting to these other indignities then I shall simply decide never to travel again, after all I don't need to.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 45
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Octanitrocubane is a recently developed product which is again, many times more powerful than HMX
As I keep on saying, profiling is the only way forward.
Also back to the "RDX Tampon" exactly how are you going to detonate it. This is not like the movies where you light a fuse and boom. High explosives tend to need low explosives to detonate.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSA has over stepped it bounds.
As previously posted cockpit crews are exposed to more radiation than may professions.
For us to opt out of this full body scan makes perfect sense.
But under the same lines we should not be subject to a TSA inspector groping our genitals.
Even my daughter traveling as a pax I would never allow this.
For years we have seen this TSA organization go from protecting us to becoming some kind of militant force.
Ever go through the screening in ATL, these women barking out orders like a drill Sargent in basic training to a recruit.
Passed through there as crew many times have seen some women passengers it tears because of the way they were treated.
Things like I told you to go over here, why did you not listen to me, at a very high angry voice.
I just looked back and never said anything, wondering how a great country like the USA had turned into something like this.
For all pilots to opt out, even the passengers is a good thing.
I just wonder how long it will be before a freight dog ops out and this TSA grabs his genitals?
And TSA ends up with missing dental work!
Time to stop this TSA, Pilots dont trust you.
We all say TSA means Too Stupid for Arbys!
Your credibility is in the gutter.
You just dont get to make up these perverted rules as you go.
You have crossed the line with all of us crews, even the pax!
As previously posted cockpit crews are exposed to more radiation than may professions.
For us to opt out of this full body scan makes perfect sense.
But under the same lines we should not be subject to a TSA inspector groping our genitals.
Even my daughter traveling as a pax I would never allow this.
For years we have seen this TSA organization go from protecting us to becoming some kind of militant force.
Ever go through the screening in ATL, these women barking out orders like a drill Sargent in basic training to a recruit.
Passed through there as crew many times have seen some women passengers it tears because of the way they were treated.
Things like I told you to go over here, why did you not listen to me, at a very high angry voice.
I just looked back and never said anything, wondering how a great country like the USA had turned into something like this.
For all pilots to opt out, even the passengers is a good thing.
I just wonder how long it will be before a freight dog ops out and this TSA grabs his genitals?
And TSA ends up with missing dental work!
Time to stop this TSA, Pilots dont trust you.
We all say TSA means Too Stupid for Arbys!
Your credibility is in the gutter.
You just dont get to make up these perverted rules as you go.
You have crossed the line with all of us crews, even the pax!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Somewhere Over America
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How To Beat The Body Scanners:
Muslim Group Advises Women Wearing Hijabs to Allow TSA ?Enhanced Pat Downs? Only on Head and Neck Area | CNSnews.com
Muslim Group Advises Women Wearing Hijabs to Allow TSA ‘Enhanced Pat Downs’ Only on Head and Neck Area
Friday, November 12, 2010
By Penny Starr
Muslim women wearing hijabs. (AP Photo)
(CNSNews.com) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has issued a travel warning to Muslim airline passengers on U.S. aircraft in response to the Transportation Safety Administration’s "enhanced pat down" policy that went into effect in late October.
CAIR said Muslims who object to full-body scans for religious reasons should know their rights if they are required to undergo a pat-down, including asking for the procedure to be done in a private place. In addition, CAIR offered a “special recommendation” for Muslim women who wear a hijab, telling them they should tell the TSA officer that they may be searched only around the head and neck.
In the “special recommendations for Muslim women who wear hijab,” it states: “Before you are patted down, you should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down.”
It also states: “Instead of the pat-down, you can always request to pat down your own scarf, including head and neck area, and have the officers perform a chemical swipe of your hands.”
The new TSA pat-downs involving “head-to-toe” screening techniques follow recent airliner bombing attempts. Passengers who reject a full-body scan or who are selected for secondary screening may be searched using the enhanced pat-down.
“Pat downs are one important tool to help TSA detect hidden and dangerous items such as explosives,” a TSA statement issued on Oct. 28 stated.
“Passengers should continue to expect an unpredictable mix of security layers that include explosives trace detection, advanced imaging technology, canine teams, among others.”
Posted on its Web site under “TSA’s Head-to-Toe Screening Policies,” the agency said how people are dressed may lead to closer inspection, including baggy or loose clothing. Those policies also include individuals being searched by a “professional” of the same sex.
“It is TSA's policy that passengers should be screened by an officer of the same gender in a professional, respectful manner,” the policy reads.
In February, the Figh Council of North America, a group of Islamic scholars, issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, that full-body scanners violate Islamic law.
“It is a violation of clear Islamic teaching that men or women be seen naked by other men and women,” the ruling states. “Islam highly emphasizes haya (modesty) and considers it part of the faith. The Qu’ran has commanded the believers, both men and women, to cover their private parts.”
CAIR endorsed the fatwa, according to a Feb. 21 article in the Detroit Free Press.
Muslim Group Advises Women Wearing Hijabs to Allow TSA ?Enhanced Pat Downs? Only on Head and Neck Area | CNSnews.com
Muslim Group Advises Women Wearing Hijabs to Allow TSA ‘Enhanced Pat Downs’ Only on Head and Neck Area
Friday, November 12, 2010
By Penny Starr
Muslim women wearing hijabs. (AP Photo)
(CNSNews.com) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has issued a travel warning to Muslim airline passengers on U.S. aircraft in response to the Transportation Safety Administration’s "enhanced pat down" policy that went into effect in late October.
CAIR said Muslims who object to full-body scans for religious reasons should know their rights if they are required to undergo a pat-down, including asking for the procedure to be done in a private place. In addition, CAIR offered a “special recommendation” for Muslim women who wear a hijab, telling them they should tell the TSA officer that they may be searched only around the head and neck.
In the “special recommendations for Muslim women who wear hijab,” it states: “Before you are patted down, you should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down.”
It also states: “Instead of the pat-down, you can always request to pat down your own scarf, including head and neck area, and have the officers perform a chemical swipe of your hands.”
The new TSA pat-downs involving “head-to-toe” screening techniques follow recent airliner bombing attempts. Passengers who reject a full-body scan or who are selected for secondary screening may be searched using the enhanced pat-down.
“Pat downs are one important tool to help TSA detect hidden and dangerous items such as explosives,” a TSA statement issued on Oct. 28 stated.
“Passengers should continue to expect an unpredictable mix of security layers that include explosives trace detection, advanced imaging technology, canine teams, among others.”
Posted on its Web site under “TSA’s Head-to-Toe Screening Policies,” the agency said how people are dressed may lead to closer inspection, including baggy or loose clothing. Those policies also include individuals being searched by a “professional” of the same sex.
“It is TSA's policy that passengers should be screened by an officer of the same gender in a professional, respectful manner,” the policy reads.
In February, the Figh Council of North America, a group of Islamic scholars, issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, that full-body scanners violate Islamic law.
“It is a violation of clear Islamic teaching that men or women be seen naked by other men and women,” the ruling states. “Islam highly emphasizes haya (modesty) and considers it part of the faith. The Qu’ran has commanded the believers, both men and women, to cover their private parts.”
CAIR endorsed the fatwa, according to a Feb. 21 article in the Detroit Free Press.
........I shall simply decide never to travel again, after all I don't need to.
I've had my fingerprints taken long before 911 in the USA and I'm not a criminal.
Why treat us all as such ?
There must be a bloody great hole somewhere in North Dakota full of untold trillions of fingerprint photos - or else why bother ? What are they going to do with them all ?
Couple of years ago an Imm. desk occupant ( I won't glorify him with any other title ) told me exactly where and when I first entered the USA, as a junior crew member of my then airline, time, date, service number, type of aircraft, departure point etc 50 years ago !! and could have repeated that info. for every subsequent entry to the present day - he said.
Is that not profiling ?
They have everything that they need on me, so why
me about now in addition ?
Last edited by ExSp33db1rd; 12th Nov 2010 at 18:40.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hero Bay Area pilot Sully Sullenberger is adding his voice to growing opposition among pilots and flight attendants to those airport body scanners.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This, and other related videos, are quite educational!
YouTube - TSA Gangstaz by Zach Selwyn and Eli Braden
YouTube - TSA Gangstaz by Zach Selwyn and Eli Braden