Call your union/congressman about security checks
Moderator
[quote]All people boarding an aircraft, and I include crew,should be subject to screening procedures.<hr></blockquote>
The flight crew can walk through buck naked and STILL fly their aircraft into a building if they so choose. Either you trust us or you don't.
. . [quote] No pilot should take for granted the security procedures put in place, don't forget, they are for your protection too. <hr></blockquote>
It is hard not to take it for granted because we "take" it every time we show up for work.
All of the "security" crack downs that have occurred since 9/11 have not, in any way, made me safer, nor would they prevent 9/11 from happening again. The only thing we have going for us is the passengers. God help us if there are only 15-20 aboard, and 10 of them are hijackers. Then the only hope is the future new hire in the fighter. Is he there for MY safety as well? There is still no credible defense for the aircraft between the genius' working the "security" checkpoints and the guy in the F'Teen. The one thing that the powers that be could have done to definitively prevent this from reoccuring, would have been to arm airline pilots. Everything else is hoping for the best. If a terrorist gets past the gauntlet of "security" screening, and his buddy, the provisioner has hidden a weapon in the lav, the only hope, once again, is the future co-pilot in the F-Teen.
If I thought for one minute that my passengers and crew were any safer by me getting groped by a felon, then I'd have no problem with it.
The fact is that we are screened as eyewash, to project the PERCEPTION of safety (Gee, if even the pilots are screened we MUST be safe!).
If actual security was the real issue, then why are pilots and flight attendants the ONLY employee groups that MUST be screened? Tell me what's protecting me from the ramper with a bomb? This issue is as absurd as random drug/alcohol testing AFTER we've flown....If rampant drug/alcohol use was actually a problem, wouldn't it benefit safety to test us BEFORE we fly?
After being cavity searched and having all of my "weapons" removed from my bag, the fact remains that I can still fly the aircraft into a building.......
[quote]Pilots and crew should take responsibility for setting a good example to their passengers. <hr></blockquote>
And being party to perpetuating the security myth. Honestly, what is the purpose of screening flight crews in the first place? I was screened when I got hired. If I am a security risk, then why am I allowed to fly the aircraft?
. . [quote]And how well do you know that new member of crew that started last week? Don't forget, the hijackers on those aircraft on Sept. 11th caried pilots licences.<hr></blockquote>
How many of them were employees of the carriers involved or any carrier for that matter? The fact remains that NO US airline pilot has ever hijacked himself or another aircraft, despite the availability of weapons such as nail clipper files, tweezers and the crash axe! There is a big difference between having a pilot's license and being an airline pilot.
The flight crew can walk through buck naked and STILL fly their aircraft into a building if they so choose. Either you trust us or you don't.
. . [quote] No pilot should take for granted the security procedures put in place, don't forget, they are for your protection too. <hr></blockquote>
It is hard not to take it for granted because we "take" it every time we show up for work.
All of the "security" crack downs that have occurred since 9/11 have not, in any way, made me safer, nor would they prevent 9/11 from happening again. The only thing we have going for us is the passengers. God help us if there are only 15-20 aboard, and 10 of them are hijackers. Then the only hope is the future new hire in the fighter. Is he there for MY safety as well? There is still no credible defense for the aircraft between the genius' working the "security" checkpoints and the guy in the F'Teen. The one thing that the powers that be could have done to definitively prevent this from reoccuring, would have been to arm airline pilots. Everything else is hoping for the best. If a terrorist gets past the gauntlet of "security" screening, and his buddy, the provisioner has hidden a weapon in the lav, the only hope, once again, is the future co-pilot in the F-Teen.
If I thought for one minute that my passengers and crew were any safer by me getting groped by a felon, then I'd have no problem with it.
The fact is that we are screened as eyewash, to project the PERCEPTION of safety (Gee, if even the pilots are screened we MUST be safe!).
If actual security was the real issue, then why are pilots and flight attendants the ONLY employee groups that MUST be screened? Tell me what's protecting me from the ramper with a bomb? This issue is as absurd as random drug/alcohol testing AFTER we've flown....If rampant drug/alcohol use was actually a problem, wouldn't it benefit safety to test us BEFORE we fly?
After being cavity searched and having all of my "weapons" removed from my bag, the fact remains that I can still fly the aircraft into a building.......
[quote]Pilots and crew should take responsibility for setting a good example to their passengers. <hr></blockquote>
And being party to perpetuating the security myth. Honestly, what is the purpose of screening flight crews in the first place? I was screened when I got hired. If I am a security risk, then why am I allowed to fly the aircraft?
. . [quote]And how well do you know that new member of crew that started last week? Don't forget, the hijackers on those aircraft on Sept. 11th caried pilots licences.<hr></blockquote>
How many of them were employees of the carriers involved or any carrier for that matter? The fact remains that NO US airline pilot has ever hijacked himself or another aircraft, despite the availability of weapons such as nail clipper files, tweezers and the crash axe! There is a big difference between having a pilot's license and being an airline pilot.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a security responsibilty within a UK airline and also I am a line pilot.
I have read all the postings and have,at last, been forced to respond. Luckily I know that the Neanderthal mind set of those above is not typical of the majority of US pilots. However the isolationist and arrogant "it will never happen to us" attitude of ALL in the US aviation industry allowed the US airport security to lapse to the state that it was in pre Sep 11.
Sadly the situation has barely improved despite lots of meaningless armed presence - nor will it whilst the people like those above refuse to comply "to get respect".
It is obvious they also have been some very selective recall of things in the past
-------------------------------------------. .How many of them were employees of the carriers involved or any carrier for that matter? . .----------------------------------------
They didn't have to be! They did it quite well as it was but some had clocked up enough trips within the US to become Frequent Fliers
Incidentally, how many Lufthansa uniforms were found discarded by the terrorists in Boston afterwards? They had certainly intended to imitate a crew.
-----------------------------------
The fact remains that NO US airline pilot has ever hijacked himself or another aircraft, despite the availability of weapons such as nail clipper files, tweezers and the crash axe! . .-----------------------------
Remember the FEDEX incident or the South West 146?
Remember that all the Sep 11 flights were internal domstic flights - chosen for the lax security applied to those flights. .---------------------------------------. .There is a big difference between having a pilot's license and being an airline pilot.. .--------------------------------------
Is there - security-wise? Do we rate the security status of a pilot on the quality of his licence?
If you object to being screened, do you think that there should be a separate check for 'foreign' aircrew? They too fly within close proximity of your buildings. You may not be aware that the British licence comes without a counter-terrorism check (CTC) - just like yours does! In fact no British aviation ID includes a CTC EXCEPT those worn by people who work in security and the very people that you slag off. THEY HAVE TO HAVE CTC CLEARANCE
We are all trying to ensure that there are no more incidents of any kind. The shoe bomber incident SHOULD have reminded people that the threat is still out there. I, for one, will happily be subjected to whatever screening may be required to acheive that!
Safe flying!
--------------------
Heads down! Incoming...... <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
I have read all the postings and have,at last, been forced to respond. Luckily I know that the Neanderthal mind set of those above is not typical of the majority of US pilots. However the isolationist and arrogant "it will never happen to us" attitude of ALL in the US aviation industry allowed the US airport security to lapse to the state that it was in pre Sep 11.
Sadly the situation has barely improved despite lots of meaningless armed presence - nor will it whilst the people like those above refuse to comply "to get respect".
It is obvious they also have been some very selective recall of things in the past
-------------------------------------------. .How many of them were employees of the carriers involved or any carrier for that matter? . .----------------------------------------
They didn't have to be! They did it quite well as it was but some had clocked up enough trips within the US to become Frequent Fliers
Incidentally, how many Lufthansa uniforms were found discarded by the terrorists in Boston afterwards? They had certainly intended to imitate a crew.
-----------------------------------
The fact remains that NO US airline pilot has ever hijacked himself or another aircraft, despite the availability of weapons such as nail clipper files, tweezers and the crash axe! . .-----------------------------
Remember the FEDEX incident or the South West 146?
Remember that all the Sep 11 flights were internal domstic flights - chosen for the lax security applied to those flights. .---------------------------------------. .There is a big difference between having a pilot's license and being an airline pilot.. .--------------------------------------
Is there - security-wise? Do we rate the security status of a pilot on the quality of his licence?
If you object to being screened, do you think that there should be a separate check for 'foreign' aircrew? They too fly within close proximity of your buildings. You may not be aware that the British licence comes without a counter-terrorism check (CTC) - just like yours does! In fact no British aviation ID includes a CTC EXCEPT those worn by people who work in security and the very people that you slag off. THEY HAVE TO HAVE CTC CLEARANCE
We are all trying to ensure that there are no more incidents of any kind. The shoe bomber incident SHOULD have reminded people that the threat is still out there. I, for one, will happily be subjected to whatever screening may be required to acheive that!
Safe flying!
--------------------
Heads down! Incoming...... <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: The World
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Speaking
Actually I'm quite shocked by your very bias attitude. Are you sure that you work part time in security? Maybe it's time that you spend a little more time on the line to find out what's really happening... . . . .Quote
"Remember that all the Sep 11 flights were internal domestic flights - chosen for the lax security applied to those flights". . . .That's not the whole story and if you don't know any better, we had better pray for our collective future if that's the extend of your knowledge of aviation security.... . . .Tan
Actually I'm quite shocked by your very bias attitude. Are you sure that you work part time in security? Maybe it's time that you spend a little more time on the line to find out what's really happening... . . . .Quote
"Remember that all the Sep 11 flights were internal domestic flights - chosen for the lax security applied to those flights". . . .That's not the whole story and if you don't know any better, we had better pray for our collective future if that's the extend of your knowledge of aviation security.... . . .Tan
Moderator
[quote]I have a security responsibilty within a UK airline and also I am a line pilot.<hr></blockquote>
Every pilot has a security responsibilities, but doesn't have the tools to carry them out.
. . [quote] Luckily I know that the Neanderthal mind set of those above is not typical of the majority of US pilots. <hr></blockquote>
Since I work with nothing but US pilots, I can say without hesitation, that the opinions echoed in the above posts are exactly how most of them feel. Your opinions are in the minority.
[quote]However the isolationist and arrogant "it will never happen to us" attitude of ALL in the US aviation industry allowed the US airport security to lapse to the state that it was in pre Sep 11. <hr></blockquote>
I guess that we are still "arrogant" and think that it can't happen again, because NOTHING has changed to prevent it!
[quote]Sadly the situation has barely improved despite lots of meaningless armed presence - nor will it whilst the people like those above refuse to comply "to get respect". <hr></blockquote>
You are correct in saying that the situation has barely improved. The only hope that we have right now is the intervention of the passengers.
[quote]It is obvious they also have been some very selective recall of things in the past<hr></blockquote>
Yes it is.
-------------------------------------------. .How many of them were employees of the carriers involved or any carrier for that matter? . .----------------------------------------
[quote]They didn't have to be! They did it quite well as it was but some had clocked up enough trips within the US to become Frequent Fliers<hr></blockquote>
EXACTLY!
[quote]Incidentally, how many Lufthansa uniforms were found discarded by the terrorists in Boston afterwards? They had certainly intended to imitate a crew.<hr></blockquote>
They were smart enough to realize that they could not pass themselves off as German AIRLINE pilots. Their plan was much simpler.
-----------------------------------
The fact remains that NO US airline pilot has ever hijacked himself or another aircraft, despite the availability of weapons such as nail clipper files, tweezers and the crash axe! . .-----------------------------
[quote]Remember the FEDEX incident or the South West 146?<hr></blockquote>
The Fed Ex guy used a hammer and a speargun (!) to perpetrate his takeover attempt. I'd venture to say that even if he didn't have these things, then the crash axe in the cockpit would have been just as, if not more effective than his choice of weaponry.
I am not familiar with any Southwest pilots attempting to hijack their own planes......
[quote]Remember that all the Sep 11 flights were internal domstic flights - chosen for the lax security applied to those flights<hr></blockquote>
Once again, they were P-A-S-S-E-N-G-E-R-S, not pilots.
---------------------------------------. .There is a big difference between having a pilot's license and being an airline pilot.. .--------------------------------------
[quote]Is there - security-wise? Do we rate the security status of a pilot on the quality of his licence?<hr></blockquote>
You don't just walk off the street and become an airline pilot (unlike the trusted ramp personel who are not subject to this nonsense). I am sure that, especially in the UK, that airline pilots are screened pretty seriously prior to being hired. They are in the states. THAT is the difference between a passenger that happens to have a pilot's license and an airline pilot.
[quote]If you object to being screened, do you think that there should be a separate check for 'foreign' aircrew? They too fly within close proximity of your buildings.<hr></blockquote>
My opinion is that in this day and age, there are ways to positively ID personel. As I said, you either trust me or you don't. If you trust ME with hundreds of lives, then there should be no question at the checkpoint. Whether or not I am carrying nothing or an MP-5 does not make any difference. I CAN STILL FLY THE AIRCRAFT INTO A BUILDING, making all of the harassment moot.
[quote]You may not be aware that the British licence comes without a counter-terrorism check (CTC) - just like yours does! In fact no British aviation ID includes a CTC EXCEPT those worn by people who work in security and the very people that you slag off. THEY HAVE TO HAVE CTC CLEARANCE <hr></blockquote>
Actually, when Mr. Terrorist interrupts your tea time, you have just gotten CTC by default! The Mc Donalds rejects that are employed as "security" in the states have NO counter terr. training, certification or anyting remotely resembling it whatsoever. They are taught to make it LOOK good........
[quote]We are all trying to ensure that there are no more incidents of any kind. The shoe bomber incident SHOULD have reminded people that the threat is still out there.<hr></blockquote>
Actually, when you refer to "we", do not include any of the US government aviation burocracies....They are not interested in actually increasing the level of security. Just the appearance of it!
[quote] I, for one, will happily be subjected to whatever screening may be required to acheive that!<hr></blockquote>
So will I....When it happens? Feeling up crewmembers will not achieve this.
[quote]Safe flying!<hr></blockquote>
Do we have a choice?
[ 25 January 2002: Message edited by: Tripower455 ]</p>
Every pilot has a security responsibilities, but doesn't have the tools to carry them out.
. . [quote] Luckily I know that the Neanderthal mind set of those above is not typical of the majority of US pilots. <hr></blockquote>
Since I work with nothing but US pilots, I can say without hesitation, that the opinions echoed in the above posts are exactly how most of them feel. Your opinions are in the minority.
[quote]However the isolationist and arrogant "it will never happen to us" attitude of ALL in the US aviation industry allowed the US airport security to lapse to the state that it was in pre Sep 11. <hr></blockquote>
I guess that we are still "arrogant" and think that it can't happen again, because NOTHING has changed to prevent it!
[quote]Sadly the situation has barely improved despite lots of meaningless armed presence - nor will it whilst the people like those above refuse to comply "to get respect". <hr></blockquote>
You are correct in saying that the situation has barely improved. The only hope that we have right now is the intervention of the passengers.
[quote]It is obvious they also have been some very selective recall of things in the past<hr></blockquote>
Yes it is.
-------------------------------------------. .How many of them were employees of the carriers involved or any carrier for that matter? . .----------------------------------------
[quote]They didn't have to be! They did it quite well as it was but some had clocked up enough trips within the US to become Frequent Fliers<hr></blockquote>
EXACTLY!
[quote]Incidentally, how many Lufthansa uniforms were found discarded by the terrorists in Boston afterwards? They had certainly intended to imitate a crew.<hr></blockquote>
They were smart enough to realize that they could not pass themselves off as German AIRLINE pilots. Their plan was much simpler.
-----------------------------------
The fact remains that NO US airline pilot has ever hijacked himself or another aircraft, despite the availability of weapons such as nail clipper files, tweezers and the crash axe! . .-----------------------------
[quote]Remember the FEDEX incident or the South West 146?<hr></blockquote>
The Fed Ex guy used a hammer and a speargun (!) to perpetrate his takeover attempt. I'd venture to say that even if he didn't have these things, then the crash axe in the cockpit would have been just as, if not more effective than his choice of weaponry.
I am not familiar with any Southwest pilots attempting to hijack their own planes......
[quote]Remember that all the Sep 11 flights were internal domstic flights - chosen for the lax security applied to those flights<hr></blockquote>
Once again, they were P-A-S-S-E-N-G-E-R-S, not pilots.
---------------------------------------. .There is a big difference between having a pilot's license and being an airline pilot.. .--------------------------------------
[quote]Is there - security-wise? Do we rate the security status of a pilot on the quality of his licence?<hr></blockquote>
You don't just walk off the street and become an airline pilot (unlike the trusted ramp personel who are not subject to this nonsense). I am sure that, especially in the UK, that airline pilots are screened pretty seriously prior to being hired. They are in the states. THAT is the difference between a passenger that happens to have a pilot's license and an airline pilot.
[quote]If you object to being screened, do you think that there should be a separate check for 'foreign' aircrew? They too fly within close proximity of your buildings.<hr></blockquote>
My opinion is that in this day and age, there are ways to positively ID personel. As I said, you either trust me or you don't. If you trust ME with hundreds of lives, then there should be no question at the checkpoint. Whether or not I am carrying nothing or an MP-5 does not make any difference. I CAN STILL FLY THE AIRCRAFT INTO A BUILDING, making all of the harassment moot.
[quote]You may not be aware that the British licence comes without a counter-terrorism check (CTC) - just like yours does! In fact no British aviation ID includes a CTC EXCEPT those worn by people who work in security and the very people that you slag off. THEY HAVE TO HAVE CTC CLEARANCE <hr></blockquote>
Actually, when Mr. Terrorist interrupts your tea time, you have just gotten CTC by default! The Mc Donalds rejects that are employed as "security" in the states have NO counter terr. training, certification or anyting remotely resembling it whatsoever. They are taught to make it LOOK good........
[quote]We are all trying to ensure that there are no more incidents of any kind. The shoe bomber incident SHOULD have reminded people that the threat is still out there.<hr></blockquote>
Actually, when you refer to "we", do not include any of the US government aviation burocracies....They are not interested in actually increasing the level of security. Just the appearance of it!
[quote] I, for one, will happily be subjected to whatever screening may be required to acheive that!<hr></blockquote>
So will I....When it happens? Feeling up crewmembers will not achieve this.
[quote]Safe flying!<hr></blockquote>
Do we have a choice?
[ 25 January 2002: Message edited by: Tripower455 ]</p>
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK
So I don't have to put up with it the way you do but I do know there is only one solution and it is in your hands. I to a certain extent had to make a similar decision in my current employment. I was given a job to fix a problem on a local air force base and rocked up at the entry with my ID in hand. Now said ID, due to the fact that I work for a government owned company, carried a government security number. The guard on duty ignored the fact that I was effectively cleared by the same people as him and demanded my personal details eg home address, before he would let me in.
Now we get to the point because like me you can just refuse. I was denied entry, they didn't get the problem fixed, a number of phone calls were made and lo and behold I was invited to come back the next day to fix it without the need to present anything more than my ID.
Now please don't give us the I can't do that line as if it is important enough to you to go on about it here, then it should be important enough to make your own stand on. I suggested you should try to encourage a team spirit to get round the problem but obviously being a pilot makes you more important than the team. Even if this is only window dressing someone believes it has a beneficial effect and contributes to you keeping your job. You should either put up or shut up.
By the way the terrorists only trained these pilots enough to do the job. They were one step ahead of security because nobody believed anyone would do this. Whose to say they aren't still one step ahead and have some guys completing the training and applying for jobs? Oh yes counter terrorist clearance, but as posted above not all countries whose aircraft fly in american airspace do that so we'll kill that argument before it comes up
I'm sorry if you don't like the views above and yes you can just say I don't know what I'm talking about. But even if you discount it because it's an outsiders view remember it's still the kind of view the SLF have.
So I don't have to put up with it the way you do but I do know there is only one solution and it is in your hands. I to a certain extent had to make a similar decision in my current employment. I was given a job to fix a problem on a local air force base and rocked up at the entry with my ID in hand. Now said ID, due to the fact that I work for a government owned company, carried a government security number. The guard on duty ignored the fact that I was effectively cleared by the same people as him and demanded my personal details eg home address, before he would let me in.
Now we get to the point because like me you can just refuse. I was denied entry, they didn't get the problem fixed, a number of phone calls were made and lo and behold I was invited to come back the next day to fix it without the need to present anything more than my ID.
Now please don't give us the I can't do that line as if it is important enough to you to go on about it here, then it should be important enough to make your own stand on. I suggested you should try to encourage a team spirit to get round the problem but obviously being a pilot makes you more important than the team. Even if this is only window dressing someone believes it has a beneficial effect and contributes to you keeping your job. You should either put up or shut up.
By the way the terrorists only trained these pilots enough to do the job. They were one step ahead of security because nobody believed anyone would do this. Whose to say they aren't still one step ahead and have some guys completing the training and applying for jobs? Oh yes counter terrorist clearance, but as posted above not all countries whose aircraft fly in american airspace do that so we'll kill that argument before it comes up
I'm sorry if you don't like the views above and yes you can just say I don't know what I'm talking about. But even if you discount it because it's an outsiders view remember it's still the kind of view the SLF have.
Moderator
[quote]Whose to say they aren't still one step ahead and have some guys completing the training and applying for jobs? <hr></blockquote>
If they get jobs as airline pilots, the whole security issue is just as moot as it is now. Any type of screening will be completely ineffective if a terrorist is an airline pilot. . .They won't need to have smuggle a weapon past the "security" gauntlet to fly the aircraft into a building. Why try to commandeer someone elses aircraft when you have your own? As I have said countless times, you either trust us or you don't. Maybe this will make certain PC hiring policies a thing of the past. I doubt it. Some things (political correctness) are more important than security!
. .A REAL ID card, with some type of positive way of ID'ing REAL pilots is needed and would actually BE effective. It would also negate the perceived need to screen us. The eyewash value would be completely lost, so it will never happen.
As far as pilots making a stand. What,exactly do you suggest we do? Writing politicians is to no avail, the airlines just want the seats filled, regardless of anything else. The media won't listen. Arguing with or even pointing out simple facts to the brain surgeons manning the checkpoints is a losing proposition (ie: we get arrested). The only way that we, as pilots will ever be heard on this issue is a S.O.S., which will never happen.
We rolled over on the security issue when it was first forced down our throats in '88 (as a result of a ground ops person smuggling a .44 magnum on board an aircraft, shooting the pilots, with predictable results. It's funny, ground ops folks STILL don't go through security.).
We rolled on random drug and alcohol testing AFTER we fly.
We will roll over on this as well.
Nothing will change to make flying safer. Maybe our doors will help some.
If they get jobs as airline pilots, the whole security issue is just as moot as it is now. Any type of screening will be completely ineffective if a terrorist is an airline pilot. . .They won't need to have smuggle a weapon past the "security" gauntlet to fly the aircraft into a building. Why try to commandeer someone elses aircraft when you have your own? As I have said countless times, you either trust us or you don't. Maybe this will make certain PC hiring policies a thing of the past. I doubt it. Some things (political correctness) are more important than security!
. .A REAL ID card, with some type of positive way of ID'ing REAL pilots is needed and would actually BE effective. It would also negate the perceived need to screen us. The eyewash value would be completely lost, so it will never happen.
As far as pilots making a stand. What,exactly do you suggest we do? Writing politicians is to no avail, the airlines just want the seats filled, regardless of anything else. The media won't listen. Arguing with or even pointing out simple facts to the brain surgeons manning the checkpoints is a losing proposition (ie: we get arrested). The only way that we, as pilots will ever be heard on this issue is a S.O.S., which will never happen.
We rolled over on the security issue when it was first forced down our throats in '88 (as a result of a ground ops person smuggling a .44 magnum on board an aircraft, shooting the pilots, with predictable results. It's funny, ground ops folks STILL don't go through security.).
We rolled on random drug and alcohol testing AFTER we fly.
We will roll over on this as well.
Nothing will change to make flying safer. Maybe our doors will help some.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought I was fairly clear in what I suggested you do. Simply refuse to proceed to the aircraft if you have to go through this. By the way they don't entirely trust you, that's one of the reasons there are two of you up front. The security is to prevent one of you from taking out the other then flying it into a building. If the company sacks you for refusing to be subjected to the degrading security check you will at the very least have the publicity of the unfair dismissal case and you can allow the courts to decide if the security check was pointless and degrading, I think you might lose.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: The World
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a very interesting article written by John Balzar of the Los Angeles Times titled "Life on the line"
<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-000005719jan23.story" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-000005719jan23.story</a>
It's all about how U.S. airports are treating passengers like sheep. Just maybe, the media are finally waking up to what's really going on with aviation security.
<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-000005719jan23.story" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-000005719jan23.story</a>
It's all about how U.S. airports are treating passengers like sheep. Just maybe, the media are finally waking up to what's really going on with aviation security.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tan, thanks for posting the LA times article.
The travelling public might put up with this treatment once, and maybe when they have to travel. But airlines can not survive on "must-travel" business alone. A large part of business has to come from people that have no other reason to go then to enjoy themselves.
The security has to improve, be reasonable and courteous. Can the FAA/TSA handle it?
Watching the FAA administrator, Mrs. Garvey, on TV, you do not get the feeling that she knows what she is talking about.
The travelling public might put up with this treatment once, and maybe when they have to travel. But airlines can not survive on "must-travel" business alone. A large part of business has to come from people that have no other reason to go then to enjoy themselves.
The security has to improve, be reasonable and courteous. Can the FAA/TSA handle it?
Watching the FAA administrator, Mrs. Garvey, on TV, you do not get the feeling that she knows what she is talking about.
Tripower,. .More power to you.. .Every statement you make is irrefutable.. .Bag matching is useless if the creep is on a suicide mission. God forbid we should profile the "innocent" laundry heads while the "guilty" 80 year old retiree is trying to smuggle some metamucil in her carry-on.. .Eyewash, pure eyewash.. .Maybe if a few children of some big shots got killed, things would be different.
As you stated before, it continues to be the "greatest security show on earth".
As you stated before, it continues to be the "greatest security show on earth".
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tan
Sorry for the late reply but I've been down route.
-----------------------------------------------. ."Are you sure that you work part time in security? ". .------------------------------------------------
I don't work part time in Security - I work full time in Security for a major UK airline. Having a line pilot involved allows a pilot input to the processes and ensures practical feed-back. It is easier to affect things from inside than sitting outside moaning.
-------------------------------------------. ."Maybe it's time that you spend a little more time on the line to find out what's really happening...!
I do! Just back from a three day trip and when I am down route I inspect the security arrangements so that I KNOW what is really happening.
I suggest you get real - or remove the "semi" from your profile! Because one thing is for sure; if your FAA mandates half of what it has proposed for your 121 airlines (and even us 129 operators!)this new regime is going to be around for a long time to come.
CS
Sorry for the late reply but I've been down route.
-----------------------------------------------. ."Are you sure that you work part time in security? ". .------------------------------------------------
I don't work part time in Security - I work full time in Security for a major UK airline. Having a line pilot involved allows a pilot input to the processes and ensures practical feed-back. It is easier to affect things from inside than sitting outside moaning.
-------------------------------------------. ."Maybe it's time that you spend a little more time on the line to find out what's really happening...!
I do! Just back from a three day trip and when I am down route I inspect the security arrangements so that I KNOW what is really happening.
I suggest you get real - or remove the "semi" from your profile! Because one thing is for sure; if your FAA mandates half of what it has proposed for your 121 airlines (and even us 129 operators!)this new regime is going to be around for a long time to come.
CS
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: The World
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Speaking
. ."if your FAA mandates half of what it has proposed for your 121 airlines (and even us 129 operators!)this new regime is going to be around for a long time to come."
Well this new regime may be around for a long time, but the major airlines won't be...They will have all filed for bankruptcy.
You get it now...
By the way, being on the 340 I see a lot of the world, so give it a rest on what you see on the 737. You're starting to believe your own rhetoric.
. ."if your FAA mandates half of what it has proposed for your 121 airlines (and even us 129 operators!)this new regime is going to be around for a long time to come."
Well this new regime may be around for a long time, but the major airlines won't be...They will have all filed for bankruptcy.
You get it now...
By the way, being on the 340 I see a lot of the world, so give it a rest on what you see on the 737. You're starting to believe your own rhetoric.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Both sides of 40W
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all very well said, and the points of view are valid. The question is, how efficient is the profiling system, if it can not distinguish a DHC from a suspect pax. I agree it's a dificult one, but, one would imagine that some sort of world wide data base could be used? Like some of the other collegues on this posting, that have been through the humiliation of being hand searched, and practicaly stripped. It's still a very embarassing situation. Especially when you just came off a flight as part of the operating crew and some of the pax, standing in line for the connecting flight, are the same ones you just flew across the Atlantic! They, now get to see the person who flew them been searched, and probably not once, but twice! It is a difficult situation, but it certainly does not inspire to much confidence? I just hope that with the expirience that the diffrent security organizations are gaining, a more efficient solution will be designed?
Moderator
[quote]I thought I was fairly clear in what I suggested you do. Simply refuse to proceed to the aircraft if you have to go through this. <hr></blockquote>
What do you think will happen if a few of us do this? We will be (are) singled out as examples.
[quote]By the way they don't entirely trust you, that's one of the reasons there are two of you up front.<hr></blockquote>
Actually, I am certain that security was never a reason considered for having 2 pilots in the cockpit. It is entirely a workload/redundancy issue.
[quote]The security is to prevent one of you from taking out the other then flying it into a building. <hr></blockquote>
How will removing my shoes at security stop me from burying the 2 foot crash axe in my F.O's head or vice versa?
[quote]If the company sacks you for refusing to be subjected to the degrading security check you will at the very least have the publicity of the unfair dismissal case and you can allow the courts to decide if the security check was pointless and degrading, I think you might lose. <hr></blockquote>
You are correct that I will lose in the above scenario. See the post about US Air Capt Menear, who was arrested for stating fact. I personally know 6 pilots who have been disciplined for "making a scene" at "security". I have also personally witnessed many attractive flight attendants singled out for "random" pat downs.
The reason that these things are happening is because there is NO LOGIC BEING APPLIED TO THE "SECURITY" SITUATION. (that's period, dot, end.........)
The entire situation is surreal.
What do you think will happen if a few of us do this? We will be (are) singled out as examples.
[quote]By the way they don't entirely trust you, that's one of the reasons there are two of you up front.<hr></blockquote>
Actually, I am certain that security was never a reason considered for having 2 pilots in the cockpit. It is entirely a workload/redundancy issue.
[quote]The security is to prevent one of you from taking out the other then flying it into a building. <hr></blockquote>
How will removing my shoes at security stop me from burying the 2 foot crash axe in my F.O's head or vice versa?
[quote]If the company sacks you for refusing to be subjected to the degrading security check you will at the very least have the publicity of the unfair dismissal case and you can allow the courts to decide if the security check was pointless and degrading, I think you might lose. <hr></blockquote>
You are correct that I will lose in the above scenario. See the post about US Air Capt Menear, who was arrested for stating fact. I personally know 6 pilots who have been disciplined for "making a scene" at "security". I have also personally witnessed many attractive flight attendants singled out for "random" pat downs.
The reason that these things are happening is because there is NO LOGIC BEING APPLIED TO THE "SECURITY" SITUATION. (that's period, dot, end.........)
The entire situation is surreal.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tripower455
You managed to ignore the original post I made which made the point.....
[quote]Now please don't give us the I can't do that line as if it is important enough to you to go on about it here, then it should be important enough to make your own stand on. I suggested you should try to encourage a team spirit to get round the problem but obviously being a pilot makes you more important than the team. Even if this is only window dressing someone believes it has a beneficial effect and contributes to you keeping your job. You should either put up or shut up. <hr></blockquote>
The point here is you don't know all of the big picture as, speaking just as SLF, I would find it reassuring to know that nobody is above a thorough security check.
You said
[quote]What do you think will happen if a few of us do this? We will be (are) singled out as examples. <hr></blockquote>
If there are only a few of you who would make this stand then the others don't see it as that important. I'm sure you go to your union when you want a pay rise, use them now. Or aren't they interested either
Don't get me wrong I personally wouldn't like to be subjected to this type of security. Although I have been at times as my job has taken me into some interesting places. Thing is the travelling public feel reassured by these measures so either get used to them or rally more support. I wish you the best of luck as in this instance I play devils advocate.
You managed to ignore the original post I made which made the point.....
[quote]Now please don't give us the I can't do that line as if it is important enough to you to go on about it here, then it should be important enough to make your own stand on. I suggested you should try to encourage a team spirit to get round the problem but obviously being a pilot makes you more important than the team. Even if this is only window dressing someone believes it has a beneficial effect and contributes to you keeping your job. You should either put up or shut up. <hr></blockquote>
The point here is you don't know all of the big picture as, speaking just as SLF, I would find it reassuring to know that nobody is above a thorough security check.
You said
[quote]What do you think will happen if a few of us do this? We will be (are) singled out as examples. <hr></blockquote>
If there are only a few of you who would make this stand then the others don't see it as that important. I'm sure you go to your union when you want a pay rise, use them now. Or aren't they interested either
Don't get me wrong I personally wouldn't like to be subjected to this type of security. Although I have been at times as my job has taken me into some interesting places. Thing is the travelling public feel reassured by these measures so either get used to them or rally more support. I wish you the best of luck as in this instance I play devils advocate.
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. In the U.S., only ~10% of boarding passengers are extensively patted down/searched at the gate; and
2. these passengers are a combination of random selections and those who a)bought one way tickets and b)bought tickets that day; and
3. deadheading pilots always meet criterion a, above, and always are searched; THEREFORE:
4. Security spends time screening the very people least likely to commit violence, THEREBY NOT SCREENING a randomly selected passenger that may be a terrorist.
QED. Back to your meals.
2. these passengers are a combination of random selections and those who a)bought one way tickets and b)bought tickets that day; and
3. deadheading pilots always meet criterion a, above, and always are searched; THEREFORE:
4. Security spends time screening the very people least likely to commit violence, THEREBY NOT SCREENING a randomly selected passenger that may be a terrorist.
QED. Back to your meals.
Moderator
[quote]You managed to ignore the original post I made which made the point.....
. .quote:. .--------------------------------------------------------------------------------. .Now please don't give us the I can't do that line as if it is important enough to you to go on about it here, then it should be important enough to make your own stand on. I suggested you should try to encourage a team spirit to get round the problem but obviously being a pilot makes you more important than the team. Even if this is only window dressing someone believes it has a beneficial effect and contributes to you keeping your job. You should either put up or shut up. . .--------------------------------------------------------------------------------{/quote]
So, if I read you correctly, I should either quietly submit to this idiocy, or become a martyr to attempt to expose the potemkin village that is "security" in the U.S..
I find it interesting that you, describing yourself as "SLF" aren't concerned that this eyewash harassment of flight crew does nothing to increase security. You defend the practice as beneficial to keeping our jobs, (ostensibly because the average person is too dull to know the difference between eyewash and security). Do you really feel better knowing that the Captain flying your aircraft is free of nail clippers and eyeglass screwdrivers? Do you think that it could prevent him from flying his aircraft into a building, if he wanted to?
As for the "put up or shut up" comment, let me ask you this. Would YOU risk a $180k a year job, several million $ worth of retirement etc, for making a stand? As it stands right now, airline pilots in general are fed up with this issue. There have been several arrested for stating fact (not making threats) at the "security" checkpoints. At least one respected captain has been "psychologically evaluated" (the company was "concerned" about his emotional well being) for writing a letter to a local paper (he made no mention of his employer) describing the idiocy of strip searching a deadheading pilot AFTER he's just FLOWN AN AIRPLANE!
This is what we are up against. ALL of the major pilot unions are working on the issue, but it is falling on deaf ears in DC. It appears, from my small picture perspective, that the government is (like you, it seems....) is more concerned with the PERCEPTION of security, rather than actually addressing the problems.
[quote]The point here is you don't know all of the big picture as, speaking just as SLF, I would find it reassuring to know that nobody is above a thorough security check.<hr></blockquote>
Well, it seems that my "picture" is a bit larger than yours is. Since I am actually subject to this stuff every day, I can see the ludicrousness of the measures. The fact that you find "reassurance" "knowing" that nobody is above a "thorough security check" tells me just how small your "picture" actually is.
In reality, the only airport employees that AREN'T above "thorough security checks" are pilots and flight attendants. It seems that EVERY other employee groups ARE above them. Why else would they have UNFETTERED access to the ramps/aircraft?
. .quote:. .--------------------------------------------------------------------------------. .What do you think will happen if a few of us do this? We will be (are) singled out as examples. . .--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there are only a few of you who would make this stand then the others don't see it as that important. I'm sure you go to your union when you want a pay rise, use them now. Or aren't they interested either. [quote]
Actually, the unions are working overtime on this issue. They are met with indifference in DC. Unfortunatly, the ONLY thing that will get their attention is a universal S.O.S. (suspension of service). I am not holding my breath on this one, but as this issue becomes even more surreal (federalisation of "security" employees), we will eventually get fed up.
[quote]Don't get me wrong I personally wouldn't like to be subjected to this type of security. <hr></blockquote>
Wel, we don't like it, and it is completely unneccesary. If I thought that removing my belt at security made my passengers, crew and myself 1 iota safer, I'd be all for it. The facts are different.
[quote]Thing is the travelling public feel reassured by these measures so either get used to them or rally more support.<hr></blockquote>
See the above comment about punitive "psych. evals. I would like nothing more than to have my airline ceo get on tv to expose this insanity. THAT would likely rally support for reasonable security easure, instead of eyewash.
[quote] I wish you the best of luck as in this instance I play devils advocate. <hr></blockquote>
Thanks....
. .quote:. .--------------------------------------------------------------------------------. .Now please don't give us the I can't do that line as if it is important enough to you to go on about it here, then it should be important enough to make your own stand on. I suggested you should try to encourage a team spirit to get round the problem but obviously being a pilot makes you more important than the team. Even if this is only window dressing someone believes it has a beneficial effect and contributes to you keeping your job. You should either put up or shut up. . .--------------------------------------------------------------------------------{/quote]
So, if I read you correctly, I should either quietly submit to this idiocy, or become a martyr to attempt to expose the potemkin village that is "security" in the U.S..
I find it interesting that you, describing yourself as "SLF" aren't concerned that this eyewash harassment of flight crew does nothing to increase security. You defend the practice as beneficial to keeping our jobs, (ostensibly because the average person is too dull to know the difference between eyewash and security). Do you really feel better knowing that the Captain flying your aircraft is free of nail clippers and eyeglass screwdrivers? Do you think that it could prevent him from flying his aircraft into a building, if he wanted to?
As for the "put up or shut up" comment, let me ask you this. Would YOU risk a $180k a year job, several million $ worth of retirement etc, for making a stand? As it stands right now, airline pilots in general are fed up with this issue. There have been several arrested for stating fact (not making threats) at the "security" checkpoints. At least one respected captain has been "psychologically evaluated" (the company was "concerned" about his emotional well being) for writing a letter to a local paper (he made no mention of his employer) describing the idiocy of strip searching a deadheading pilot AFTER he's just FLOWN AN AIRPLANE!
This is what we are up against. ALL of the major pilot unions are working on the issue, but it is falling on deaf ears in DC. It appears, from my small picture perspective, that the government is (like you, it seems....) is more concerned with the PERCEPTION of security, rather than actually addressing the problems.
[quote]The point here is you don't know all of the big picture as, speaking just as SLF, I would find it reassuring to know that nobody is above a thorough security check.<hr></blockquote>
Well, it seems that my "picture" is a bit larger than yours is. Since I am actually subject to this stuff every day, I can see the ludicrousness of the measures. The fact that you find "reassurance" "knowing" that nobody is above a "thorough security check" tells me just how small your "picture" actually is.
In reality, the only airport employees that AREN'T above "thorough security checks" are pilots and flight attendants. It seems that EVERY other employee groups ARE above them. Why else would they have UNFETTERED access to the ramps/aircraft?
. .quote:. .--------------------------------------------------------------------------------. .What do you think will happen if a few of us do this? We will be (are) singled out as examples. . .--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there are only a few of you who would make this stand then the others don't see it as that important. I'm sure you go to your union when you want a pay rise, use them now. Or aren't they interested either. [quote]
Actually, the unions are working overtime on this issue. They are met with indifference in DC. Unfortunatly, the ONLY thing that will get their attention is a universal S.O.S. (suspension of service). I am not holding my breath on this one, but as this issue becomes even more surreal (federalisation of "security" employees), we will eventually get fed up.
[quote]Don't get me wrong I personally wouldn't like to be subjected to this type of security. <hr></blockquote>
Wel, we don't like it, and it is completely unneccesary. If I thought that removing my belt at security made my passengers, crew and myself 1 iota safer, I'd be all for it. The facts are different.
[quote]Thing is the travelling public feel reassured by these measures so either get used to them or rally more support.<hr></blockquote>
See the above comment about punitive "psych. evals. I would like nothing more than to have my airline ceo get on tv to expose this insanity. THAT would likely rally support for reasonable security easure, instead of eyewash.
[quote] I wish you the best of luck as in this instance I play devils advocate. <hr></blockquote>
Thanks....