TSA - Pilots to be exempt from scanners & pat downs.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The Home of the Gnomes
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
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.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now you may argue that pilots are essential to flying a plane - but so are paying passengers! So there is absolutely no reason why pilots should be trusted any more an ordinary pax, sorry.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Europe
Age: 56
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taking weapons through pax security is the stupidest way of breaching security, far too many down sides.
If you want to get stuff airside there's so many easier ways, which most of you can think of. Pilots families held hostage is ludicrous. I could put a weapon airside at just about any international airport with very little effort tomorrow if I so desired. X-ray machines aren't going to even feature in the attempt.
The amateurish attempts used recently are nothing more than scaremongering to spark over the top responses.
They've already won.
If you want to get stuff airside there's so many easier ways, which most of you can think of. Pilots families held hostage is ludicrous. I could put a weapon airside at just about any international airport with very little effort tomorrow if I so desired. X-ray machines aren't going to even feature in the attempt.
The amateurish attempts used recently are nothing more than scaremongering to spark over the top responses.
They've already won.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you go to the dentist and they do an xray, they put a lead apron on you, then both the dentist and the assistant go out of the room before remotely activating the xray, which usually takes a couple of seconds.
Meanwhile these new back scatter machines, which have not been properly assessed as to the risk (or else such a study would have been released already) are running in the open, with sheeple moving through them and the TSA agents standing alongside, well within the danger area since there is no lead shielding (or just a little in the glass).
If I was a TSO who could think (now that could be a problem) I would not like this at all. I should think there will be lots of compensation claims in the future, like there are now for asbestos, when these guys and gals come down with cancer, whether or not the back scatter machines were the cause.
Meanwhile these new back scatter machines, which have not been properly assessed as to the risk (or else such a study would have been released already) are running in the open, with sheeple moving through them and the TSA agents standing alongside, well within the danger area since there is no lead shielding (or just a little in the glass).
If I was a TSO who could think (now that could be a problem) I would not like this at all. I should think there will be lots of compensation claims in the future, like there are now for asbestos, when these guys and gals come down with cancer, whether or not the back scatter machines were the cause.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Double Oak, Texas
Age: 71
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There has been plenty of X-ray exposure studies done over the decades. Here's one from the 1950's in Nevada.....
A-Bomb Blast Effects : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
A-Bomb Blast Effects : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: The right side of the Pennines
Age: 73
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So there is absolutely no reason why pilots should be trusted any more an ordinary pax, sorry.
It's the suspect, unknown factor, PASSENGERS that are causing the problem - when did a pilot ever need to find a devious way of by-passing security to then destroy an aeroplane ?
Yes, one has to be satisfied that the individual that flies like a pilot, quacks like a pilot, and waddles like a pilot - really is a pilot, but that's a damned sight easier to do than the present system, which isn't doing that anyway !
I know of 2 suicidal pilots - there may have been more - who succeeded in their aim without the aid of guns or bombs, they just stopped "Flying the Aeroplane" and no amount of perving at their naked x-rays, or large watches, ( we're talking pilots, right ? ) or squeezing of their b*lls would have prevented either of those events.
In the context of this thread, the operating crew ARE different, not superior, just different, and should be treated as such.
Live with it.
Last edited by YorkshireTyke; 3rd Dec 2010 at 22:59.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HF,
I have generally agreed with most of your posts on this forum as appearing balanced but I respectfully disagree with you here. I'm just SLF but I subscribe to the theory that the system (with all its drawbacks) is as strong as it's weakest link and that whilst it does seem a lower degree of risk is present, it is not the case that it is 'No risk' at all can be the case. I believe this topic is covered in other forums such as FT (you may be familiar with that) and the consensus of those against giving aircrew a free pass is that in doing that (and that would be many thousands) the risk factor of being suborned or coerced is immediately increased. The hostage / impersonator scenarios are not inconceivable. As a logically minded person, I see such a concession if given to pilots eventually being demanded by other crew (yet more thousands) or if not given being a source of malcontent. What would you do with this issue. 'Background checks' (from which jurisdictions) as the 'fail-safe' don't cut it. They offer no guarantees. I am convinced through reading some of these posts here and elsewhere that ego plays a large part in some of these demands. I am a passenger. I don't enjoy the process myself but I submit to it in the knowledge that everyone is treated the same by the system and that provides for a minimum level of safety. There is no 'playing favourites' and 'I'm going to take you on trust old boy' because your in charge. That's my view of the world. I respect your view and it must seem annoying to you to have to endure the process as the rest of us mortals do but worse things happen at sea my friend!
Ted
I have generally agreed with most of your posts on this forum as appearing balanced but I respectfully disagree with you here. I'm just SLF but I subscribe to the theory that the system (with all its drawbacks) is as strong as it's weakest link and that whilst it does seem a lower degree of risk is present, it is not the case that it is 'No risk' at all can be the case. I believe this topic is covered in other forums such as FT (you may be familiar with that) and the consensus of those against giving aircrew a free pass is that in doing that (and that would be many thousands) the risk factor of being suborned or coerced is immediately increased. The hostage / impersonator scenarios are not inconceivable. As a logically minded person, I see such a concession if given to pilots eventually being demanded by other crew (yet more thousands) or if not given being a source of malcontent. What would you do with this issue. 'Background checks' (from which jurisdictions) as the 'fail-safe' don't cut it. They offer no guarantees. I am convinced through reading some of these posts here and elsewhere that ego plays a large part in some of these demands. I am a passenger. I don't enjoy the process myself but I submit to it in the knowledge that everyone is treated the same by the system and that provides for a minimum level of safety. There is no 'playing favourites' and 'I'm going to take you on trust old boy' because your in charge. That's my view of the world. I respect your view and it must seem annoying to you to have to endure the process as the rest of us mortals do but worse things happen at sea my friend!
Ted
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I forgot, HF
I have nothing at all to do with those you refer to as 'some halfwit' but it seems to me that your tone lends weight to the theory that ego is a factor as you appear to see them as lower down the status scale than yourself. Referring to those you perceive as your antagonisers, as halfwits, in an intemperate manner, probably won't advance your cause much. I presume that cause (at least in part) is reliant on being seen as part of a respected profession unlikely to hold any malicious intent. However petty name calling of those you obviously see as lesser mortals and manifest irritation on your part only shows that you have the same weaknesses / emotions as the rest of the general population and by implication should not be granted too much in the way of concessions.
I have nothing at all to do with those you refer to as 'some halfwit' but it seems to me that your tone lends weight to the theory that ego is a factor as you appear to see them as lower down the status scale than yourself. Referring to those you perceive as your antagonisers, as halfwits, in an intemperate manner, probably won't advance your cause much. I presume that cause (at least in part) is reliant on being seen as part of a respected profession unlikely to hold any malicious intent. However petty name calling of those you obviously see as lesser mortals and manifest irritation on your part only shows that you have the same weaknesses / emotions as the rest of the general population and by implication should not be granted too much in the way of concessions.
Last edited by teddybear44; 4th Dec 2010 at 22:32.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YORKSHIRE..........Agreed, they are different, but where is the sense in changing or amending a policy when the obvious consequence of doing that is adding another risk dimension. Can you guarantee that no member of operating crew worldwide would ever attempt to use such a concession for malicious ends either of their own volition or acting under duress. No of course you can't!
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time to look for a new dentist Teddy. I can't remember the last time I did not have a lead apron for an x-ray and they definately left the room before pressing the button.
As long as anyone can go airside without screening, screening aircrew is an intrusive and now potentially dangerous practice. As many others have said the idea of holding the pilots family hostage will make a great B Grade movie but is hardly the best way to go. And if anyone thinks it is a likely scenario then why is it not possible to do so for one of the many people who do not get screened.
As to SLF, you should be worried if you are a very frequent flyer. If you are spending as much time in the air as the crew you have the same high exposure to radiation from flying and adding these new scans is not an improvement. We spend our fair share of time travelling as pax and a cleared frequent flyer scheme would be a huge improvement.
As to those who are saying no price it too big, did they introduce the same level of screening as airports to get on the tube in London?
As long as anyone can go airside without screening, screening aircrew is an intrusive and now potentially dangerous practice. As many others have said the idea of holding the pilots family hostage will make a great B Grade movie but is hardly the best way to go. And if anyone thinks it is a likely scenario then why is it not possible to do so for one of the many people who do not get screened.
As to SLF, you should be worried if you are a very frequent flyer. If you are spending as much time in the air as the crew you have the same high exposure to radiation from flying and adding these new scans is not an improvement. We spend our fair share of time travelling as pax and a cleared frequent flyer scheme would be a huge improvement.
As to those who are saying no price it too big, did they introduce the same level of screening as airports to get on the tube in London?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roger,
Funnily enough, I was actually thinking of changing my dentist but not for the reasons you state. Never seen a hospital patient wear a lead apron for an x-ray (self-defeating).
I believe in the US the new rules are that operating aircrew are now exempt from enhanced pat downs or the imaging machines (backscatter / mmw) so you don't have to worry in the first place, at least not in the US. You are one up on us pax in that respect.
'Whilst people go airside unscreened'. Who is that then? I can't think of any myself as far as Europe goes, with the exception of armed officers (that actually would be a waste of time and dangerous to screen, risking negligent / accidental discharge).
I am afraid that your quantative analysis of the risk factor appears not to be scientific when you liken it to a 'B' movie unlikely scenario. These things often seem unlikely....until they happen. It is often the 'unlikely' (discarded) risk that gets exploited. How likely did 9/11 seem beforehand? The simple fact is that if you leave a potential gap, then the possibility remains that it could theoretically (even probably) be exploited and so it is prudent not to leave these gaps at all when the system can reasonably close them. Pandering to egos is not a good enough reason to leave this same (considerable) gap. Take your pick from bribery, coercion, duress, maicious intent. Leaving this gap is not a good idea when those involved number in the hundreds of thousands. Since this gap does not yet exist for aircrew it is not possible to state that they would not be coerced You are in the realms of supposition that they would not be (based on what?). Why take the risk
I appreciate the (often made) point that a Pilot can once he is in control, take the machine and himself down but leaving this gap by virtue of exemption from search allows infinitley more variations. I presume you would agree with the theory that it would be easier to find someone to carry something airside (for passing on) from the aircrew community than it is to find one who will terminate the flight by sacrificing themself, especially if there is llittle risk of detection (initially) when doing so as you have exempted them. Even if you could find someone to act in the former manner, you are limited to that individuals rostered operation and the possibility of them not following through. The elimination of the requirement of sacrafice instantly increases the risk an by a considerable multiple. To create a community of tens of thousands who are exempted by the system, makes them instantly attractive as targets for all sorts of wrongdoing and seems to me to be a non-starter. In summary I can think of plenty of reasons for the status quo but not many for supporting the exemtion argument. I know this is not what you want to hear but it is a statistical exercise backed up by the fact that at the end of the day, there are simply no guarantees, when you exempt people. Being reliant on background checks is not sufficient either. That is a limited statement about what has been found concerning someones past using limited means (I am guessing) and offers no guarantees about future behavoir or vulnerability to the factors mentioned earlier being applied to them. How often is this done anyway....years, I'm betting. I will agree that perhaps frequent exposure to the backscatter machine is something I would support you on due to the unknowns but I do not in any way agree a blanket exemption from other screening for tens of thousands of (constantly changing) aircrew (some who might potentially become aircrew with motive in mind) is even remotely sensible.
As the humble SLF, this is the way I prefer it. I would hope that my pilot is sufficiently not wrapped up in his own ego to be overly bothered by the search which the rest of us have to go through to get on the same plane.
Can't speak with authority about the Tube but certainly metal detector arches, sniffer dogs have been operated by BTP I believe. I suppose they are physically constrained by the nature of the environment but I agree there is a difference. Perhaps its a case of what is actually physically possible and deemed appropriate....can't say myself!
All the best,
Ted
Funnily enough, I was actually thinking of changing my dentist but not for the reasons you state. Never seen a hospital patient wear a lead apron for an x-ray (self-defeating).
I believe in the US the new rules are that operating aircrew are now exempt from enhanced pat downs or the imaging machines (backscatter / mmw) so you don't have to worry in the first place, at least not in the US. You are one up on us pax in that respect.
'Whilst people go airside unscreened'. Who is that then? I can't think of any myself as far as Europe goes, with the exception of armed officers (that actually would be a waste of time and dangerous to screen, risking negligent / accidental discharge).
I am afraid that your quantative analysis of the risk factor appears not to be scientific when you liken it to a 'B' movie unlikely scenario. These things often seem unlikely....until they happen. It is often the 'unlikely' (discarded) risk that gets exploited. How likely did 9/11 seem beforehand? The simple fact is that if you leave a potential gap, then the possibility remains that it could theoretically (even probably) be exploited and so it is prudent not to leave these gaps at all when the system can reasonably close them. Pandering to egos is not a good enough reason to leave this same (considerable) gap. Take your pick from bribery, coercion, duress, maicious intent. Leaving this gap is not a good idea when those involved number in the hundreds of thousands. Since this gap does not yet exist for aircrew it is not possible to state that they would not be coerced You are in the realms of supposition that they would not be (based on what?). Why take the risk
I appreciate the (often made) point that a Pilot can once he is in control, take the machine and himself down but leaving this gap by virtue of exemption from search allows infinitley more variations. I presume you would agree with the theory that it would be easier to find someone to carry something airside (for passing on) from the aircrew community than it is to find one who will terminate the flight by sacrificing themself, especially if there is llittle risk of detection (initially) when doing so as you have exempted them. Even if you could find someone to act in the former manner, you are limited to that individuals rostered operation and the possibility of them not following through. The elimination of the requirement of sacrafice instantly increases the risk an by a considerable multiple. To create a community of tens of thousands who are exempted by the system, makes them instantly attractive as targets for all sorts of wrongdoing and seems to me to be a non-starter. In summary I can think of plenty of reasons for the status quo but not many for supporting the exemtion argument. I know this is not what you want to hear but it is a statistical exercise backed up by the fact that at the end of the day, there are simply no guarantees, when you exempt people. Being reliant on background checks is not sufficient either. That is a limited statement about what has been found concerning someones past using limited means (I am guessing) and offers no guarantees about future behavoir or vulnerability to the factors mentioned earlier being applied to them. How often is this done anyway....years, I'm betting. I will agree that perhaps frequent exposure to the backscatter machine is something I would support you on due to the unknowns but I do not in any way agree a blanket exemption from other screening for tens of thousands of (constantly changing) aircrew (some who might potentially become aircrew with motive in mind) is even remotely sensible.
As the humble SLF, this is the way I prefer it. I would hope that my pilot is sufficiently not wrapped up in his own ego to be overly bothered by the search which the rest of us have to go through to get on the same plane.
Can't speak with authority about the Tube but certainly metal detector arches, sniffer dogs have been operated by BTP I believe. I suppose they are physically constrained by the nature of the environment but I agree there is a difference. Perhaps its a case of what is actually physically possible and deemed appropriate....can't say myself!
All the best,
Ted
Last edited by teddybear44; 5th Dec 2010 at 09:54. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: lapbandland
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Teddy you and the entire system you so eloquently support
are all fools.
Pilots may be ego driven on these issues but elementary
logic must be accepted, don't treat pilots equally because
even taking our liquids, knives, scissors, nail clippers etc.
does not stop us getting control of the aircraft.
Even if our families are being held at gunpoint back home
we still have a huge fire axe beside us and full access to
the aircraft controls. You and the entire paranoid world
need to accept these FACTS and get over YOUR ego's.
are all fools.
Pilots may be ego driven on these issues but elementary
logic must be accepted, don't treat pilots equally because
even taking our liquids, knives, scissors, nail clippers etc.
does not stop us getting control of the aircraft.
Even if our families are being held at gunpoint back home
we still have a huge fire axe beside us and full access to
the aircraft controls. You and the entire paranoid world
need to accept these FACTS and get over YOUR ego's.
