Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

APA president advises pilots against using new body scanners

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

APA president advises pilots against using new body scanners

Old 21st Nov 2010, 00:05
  #61 (permalink)  
Psychophysiological entity
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Tweet Rob_Benham Famous author. Well, slightly famous.
Age: 84
Posts: 3,270
Received 33 Likes on 16 Posts
What I can't understand is that there are senior people in the US government that are exempt from the screening.

Let's go back a step.

Crews might be subject to a threat of harm to their family. It is assumed they may take over their own aircraft at the behest of a terrorist. This faulty logic is bad enough, but just how different are the senior government people? Can we assume they don't have the same human frailties?

If I had to put money on which of the two groups I would trust under pressure, I know in this scenario, it wouldn't be the politicians.
Loose rivets is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2010, 19:43
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cool

Hi,

Urine everywhere

TSA pat-down leaves traveler covered in urine - Travel - News - msnbc.com
jcjeant is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2010, 20:07
  #63 (permalink)  

Forewarned is Forearmed
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: uk
Age: 60
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I recently refused a so called low dose dental X-ray despite being told its about the same amount of radioation you would get on two long haul flights. There is now mounting evidence that there may be an increase in oral & throat cancer through excessive dental X rays given by some trigger happy dentists, dismissed a few years ago as very safe.

The key thing with any radiation is limiting your exposure to it, although I'm not aircrew or a physicist, it seems that we in the Aviation industry receive a fair dose of Radiation already, from Cosmic radiation, Radar from aircraft and Airport based radars, mobile phones, VHF UHF HF, Xray machines at crew search, its around us all day.

No more thanks

Airport body scanners 'could give you cancer', warns expert
Ranger 1 is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2010, 09:27
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Slovakia
Age: 65
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Crews might be subject to a threat of harm to their family.
No nail files but what about all the guns on US flights (Air marshals)

Last edited by rennaps; 25th Nov 2010 at 09:34. Reason: clarification
rennaps is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2010, 14:42
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Well, Islamic scholars in America have stated their opposition to the scanners months ago, long before the APA advisement:

Airport body scanners violate Islamic law, Muslims say

Updated 2/12/2010 11:48 AM
By Niraj Warikoo, Detroit Free Press

Saying that body scanners violate Islamic law, Muslim-American groups are supporting a "fatwa" — a religious ruling — that forbids Muslims from going through the scanners at airports.

The Fiqh Council of North America — a body of Islamic scholars — issued a fatwa this week that says going through the airport scanners would violate Islamic rules on modesty.

"It is a violation of clear Islamic teachings that men or women be seen naked by other men and women," reads the fatwa issued Tuesday. "Islam highly emphasizes haya (modesty) and considers it part of faith. The Quran has commanded the believers, both men and women, to cover their private parts."

The decision could complicate efforts to intensify screening of potential terrorists who are Muslim. After the Christmas Day bombing attempt in Detroit by a Muslim suspect from Nigeria, some have called for the use of body scanners at airports to find explosives and other dangerous materials carried by terrorists. Some airports are now in the process of buying and using the body scanners, which show in graphic detail the outlines of a person's body.

But Muslim groups say the scanners go against their religion...
Airport body scanners violate Islamic law, Muslims say - USATODAY.com
Airbubba is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2010, 16:47
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: en route
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This is what they are planning...

Al-Qaeda vows to continue parcel bomb attacks - Yahoo! News

"To bring down American we do not need to strike big," the network [Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsular] said in an English-language magazine called Inspire, which was monitored Saturday by the US-based Intelcenter.

"In such an environment of security phobia that is sweeping America, it is more feasible to stage smaller attacks that involve less players and less time to launch and thus we may circumvent the security barriers America worked so hard to erect," Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsular said.

"This strategy of attacking the enemy with smaller, but more frequent operations is what some may refer to as the strategy of a thousand cuts. The aim is to bleed the enemy to death."

"We are laying out for our enemies our plan in advance because... our objective is not maximum kill but to cause a hemorrhage in the aviation industry, an industry that is so vital for trade and transportation between the US and Europe."

The AQAP writer notes that the entire printer-ink bomb plot cost them USD4,200. Any estimates on what it's cost us?

Well, some of us always said it was going to be a long war....
rcsa is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2010, 17:45
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
the only reason the enemy is having fun with us is that we are too nice...I'll just say that Curtis LeMay was right. bomb them till their all dead.

that' s it.
protectthehornet is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2010, 09:53
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: EGCC
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
British Pilots warn on body scanners and security

From BALPA's website:

BRITISH PILOTS WARN ON BODY SCANNERS AND SECURITY - 'AVIATION COULD GRIND TO A HALT'
The British Airline Pilots' Association (BALPA) today hailed the 'commonsense' of the United States' Transport Security Authority which has declared that airline pilots need not go through body scanners set up in the USA and that a new system will be introduced that allows free movement of US pilots inside the States based on pre-checks.

Jim McAuslan, BALPA General Secretary, said: 'This is a real victory for commonsense. Both BALPA and pilots in the USA have been pressing their governments to exclude professional pilots from body scanning and it is good to see the US Government has accepted our arguments.

'I can tell our Government that this news has added to British pilots'
frustrations at the increasingly bureaucratic, inefficient and stress-inducing UK security regime which continues to see the pilot as a security threat rather than part of the solution.

'On top of this the UK Government has failed to carry out independent verification of the cumulative impact of these machines and how individuals going through ionising scanners can keep count of their personal cumulative exposure.

'Although body scanners have not yet been installed at crew security lines in the UK they are increasingly being rolled out in passenger security areas, which British pilots also regularly use. The Government's policy is that if anyone refuses to use these scanners they will be told they cannot fly. In the US an alternative 'pat down' is available, albeit this is being applied in an unacceptably intrusive way that many US citizens say is like "groping".

'If the UK ploughs ahead with its plans it is going to face similar levels of civil resistance as the US administration faced. The UK should learn.
The Government should call a halt on any further development until independent health and safety checks have been done and people can be reassured that there is no health risk.

'And the Government should come to an urgent agreement for UK pilots flying into the US to be on the same footing as our US cousins.

'Unless the British Government gets a grip on this then they will face a strong reaction that could see UK aviation grind to a halt.

'The Allied
Pilots Association (APA) in the US advised pilots to refuse to go through scanners and that seemed to get their Government's attention.

'The fact is that airline pilots are the last line of defence in aviation security and are part of the solution, not part of the problem. We know that, the public sees that, and our administrators in the UK have got to get real.'
JockMcToff is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2010, 04:20
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Exclamation Yeah right Scanners are "Safe". Which manufacturer do you work for

Fact 1 Nobody knows how much radiation is too much.
Fact 2 Low frequency is extremely dangerous because it hits and dissipation of the energy into surface cells. Back-scatter is usually created diagnostic beam is partially absorbed to make an image. ( Ever noticed that all doctors wear glasses in the cath lab? They are lead glasses and they are to protect their eyes from prolonged exposure They wear lead aprons too, but the primary beam is well controlled the problem is the low energy back-scatter, that is generated from the subject. Exposure to it is dangerous)
Fact 3 They eyes are very susceptible to ionizing radiation especially back-scatter because it dissipates into rapidly multiplying cells. Cells like the cornea
Fact 4 If it can see through a solid object it has to be ionizing! (and prolonged exposure IR is just as devastating to vision) !

Stay out of the scanners or get ready to find the ground with a white cane if you live!!
biggles49 is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2010, 16:28
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: jordan
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
it works

The definition of terrorism is: a policy or act intended to intimidate or cause terror, usually for the furtherance of ideological goals
Terror refers to fear: an emtional response to threats and danger.

By carrying out these relatively small acts, like the shoebomber, the diaper one they have instagated terror and terrorism.

The emotional response of the analy challenged, oops government is to install full bodyscanners. Whilst it is an emotional response no proper research has been conducted and all is justified.

If x-ray is carried out on aircraft during maintenance no access is permitted to the hangar for NDT staff. some of the hangars easily fit 4 or 5 B747's wingtip to wingtip, yet it is not permitted on grounds of radiation control. Granted, they x-ray metal parts and it requires a higher dosage, but in relative terms I would be tempted to think the radiotion inside the cubicle is higher than in the enormous hangar..........
contractor25 is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2010, 12:21
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The Home of the Gnomes
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Exclamation Attn BALPA Members

If there are any BALPA members who have concerns over the issue of backscatter scanners, you want to get yourself to the General Members section of the BALPA Forum and dig in.
Tay Cough is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 02:45
  #72 (permalink)  
LH2
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Abroad
Posts: 1,172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ap0008
There must be some point when people just say "enough", and refuse to take it any more.
Yup. About five years ago, when the Brits came up with the no-hand-luggage idea, and the subsequent so-called "liquids ban".

About two weeks after that was the last time I let myself be subject to those illegal practices. What I do, as I approach the "security" (ha!) checkpoint, I advise whoever is there that they should summon a police officer, so he can conduct a search of my person and belongings, if he deems necessary, and that they have exactly one minute to comply, else I'll just walk through with all the consequences that entails for them (theoretically! in practise it doesn't happen).

Depending on which airport and where in Europe you are, the police may take shorter or longer, but if I see they have called with no delay, I'm happy to wait for a reasonable amount of time.

When the police officer arrives I explain that I refuse to allow a search to be carried out on my person by anyone without police powers, as that would be against the law, and that if they wish, they may for reasons of practicality wish to conduct a search themselves. The only times I have had a problem so far have been in CDG and ORY. In the former the rather young officer at first did not believe he should be doing this himself (art. 62 of the French civil aviation code refers, to the extent that this is regulated at all), so it took a call to his superiors to convince him (after I threatened to call them myself).

At Orly, it was similar, except the officer in charge said he did not want to do it in case everybody started asking. I then informed him that in that case I would proceed to the gate anyway, unless he arrested me--his response was, I quote:

"Well, I can't arrest you."
"??? -- Why not?" Says I. I wasn't expecting this.
"Because no offence is being committed. The security checks are a private arrangement between the airport operator and the airlines, not a penal matter, and therefore there are no grounds for an arrest."
I guess that explained why he didn't want to get involved in the first place
In any event, as he was saying this, Starky and a female Hutch appeared, they asked the rather obvious question of whether I was carrying anything that I did not wish or was not supposed to be carrying (no I wasn't), then had a cursory look in my bag, checked my passport ("you seem to travel a lot" they said. No scheiße ), and I was off on my way.

Once I was particularly frustrated so I just walked right through the whole circus and into the gates area (at CDG again). Now, as I'm sure you know, the airport operator calls this a "breach of security" (as if) and the procedure is to evacuate the terminal, conduct a search, etc., etc. Did any of that happen? My arse it did, though I would have loved to see it.

What did happen was that about five minutes latter I was approached by police who asked me to come with them. I quickly pointed out that I refused to go unless under arrest, but the guy said he was having a **** day already and would I please just come and not make life more difficult for him--he sounded honest so I followed him. They did a search, asked me why (why not?), one of the "security" women came to greet me ("I know you," she said, "you did the same a couple weeks ago!" at which point the flic shook his head), and then they let me go, wishing to never see me again. As we exchanged greetings, I asked him what about the "procedure" (evacuation, etc.), he said that was the airport's problem not the police's and sensibly asked "you didn't leave anything back there, did you?" So much for all the FUD they feed you

So there you go. It's simple enough to just say no. I get to keep my dignity, my principles, and most important, it's all for the greater good anyway.

One last aside regarding all those who go saying the terrorists this and the terrorists that... have you actually met any of them? I have, in social and non-social occasions (one non-social occasion being altogether unpleasant), and still I have vastly more respect for those people than I have for anyone who even remotely supports this ongoing idiocy, be it by commission or by omission.

Hope this helps. I would really like to see all this charade taken to the courts--I'm embarrassed to say I haven't yet found the time and dedication to do it myself, but I hope to have the opportunity one day.
LH2 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.