Bomb in shoe joke lands AF pilot in hot water
 

Kind of a stupid thing to do in these jittery times, even though it was a joke. Professional pilots should not joke when it comes to security people with empty craniums. The following from BBC.

---


Pilot held over air 'joke'

The Paris-bound flight was delayed as a result of the incident
An Air France pilot has been arrested at New York's John F Kennedy Airport after reportedly joking at a security checkpoint that he had a bomb in his shoes.

A Port Authority spokeswoman said the pilot was detained after making what she described as an inappropriate remark.

The pilot, who was not identified, was later charged with falsely reporting an incident. Flight AF009, which had been due to leave New York late on Friday, was delayed as a result and 350 passengers had to stay in local hotels overnight.

The flight eventually left for Paris Charles de Gaulle airport after a new co-pilot flew in from Paris, an Air France spokesman in Paris told BBC News Online.

The airline said the pilot had been arrested following "misinterpreted remarks". A witness told the French news agency AFP that the man had jokingly referred to a bomb in his shoes as he passed through security.

Airport police detained him and he is due to appear before a judge, as early as Sunday, on charges which could result in a jail term of up to 11 years, the agency said.

I'm less surprised when smart ass idiot civilians, who just don't get it, make these kind of comments in airports, but astounded that a pilot would. What the bloody hell was he thinking?

A very unprofessional remark if it,s true, and a very over zealous security officer, me thinks a caution from a police officer and a talking too from his (the pilot,s) captain would have done the job, the media loves this kind of behaviour and it will harm our industry no end. I am sure Air France boss,es will not be amused

Well, if the pilot wasn't subject to needless, PASSENGER screening, then this wouldn't happen!

Right On Tripower!

Last month while going through security, a novice X-Ray technician zeroed in on my miniature break-apart screwdriver (the same on I have carried for 18+ months and never been stopped for -about 1 inch long). "I'll have to ask the supervisor on this one he said. I gathered up my stuff and wandered over to the super's podium. The super looked at me and gave me a wry smile and said, "I can say something you cannot. The most deadly weapons you have are your hands."

(I wanted to ask him if he had ridden through a couple of my landings....) "You are absolutely right," I said.

Then he added, "Another pilot came through here in uniform with a "tool" and after questioning him I let him go. The guy immediately called the FAA and ratted me out for letting him through with the tool and then they called the TSA and in 15 minutes my ass was on the hotseat." I asked him if he gives this guy a ton of grief everytime he shows up. He certainly deserves it.

It is true: We are sometimes our own worst enemies. Or, as Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and it is us."

Damned fool morons!

PT

Am I missing something here? A pilot treats the touchy issue of airline security as a joke (and I'm inclined to write 'with contempt') and it's the security personnel who are the ones with "empty craniums"?

If a passenger had said this "as a joke" I suspect the pilots on this forum would be baying for his blood. Does it only become a harmless joke when it's one of your own?

In any case, why do people still think that the "bomb in the luggage" joke is funny? It's not. It's unoriginal and it's pathetic. :mad:

Shoe in mouth joke
 

Konkordski,

Don't get your bowels in an uproar. What the pilot did was utterly stupid, but we all know that you don't joke with border guards, immigration officials, or airport security personnel.

What I meant by "empty craniums" is that in the U.S. at least, many of the security people are still about three sandwiches short of a picnic. Even if they are federalized, many are still the same who worked for the private firms and we all know their IQ levels and pay scales.

So, the lesson is, look serious. Don't protest and don't even mention the fact that you have 15 dwarf Kurds in your pocket. Even though that would be an exaggeration, you would probably be put through enough grilling that you would miss your flight and face possible arrest for "willfully" doing something illegal.

In the case of the AF pilot, the company suffered a great deal. It had to put up 350 people in hotels, transport them back and forth and feed them. Plus, they had to fly in another driver. (Can't see why AF didn't have a few reserve pilots on standby at JFK).

This just goes to prove that the cosmetic security measures that we have in place is being run by moronic imbeciles. If the TSA monkeys can't figure out that the operating crew, in uniform, are trying to be humorous or more likely trying to make a point that the charade of this pathetic security system that's in place then we, collectively as aircrew need to make a point.

How many terrorists have they winkled out with this security? How many terrorists ae going to admit they are carrying a bomb in their shoe? Someone here needs to a real kick up their @rse and it's not the pilot! Some of you who are shrieking with outrage at the foolishness of the pilot are either pompous w@nkers or so far up your own backsides that you have lost the plot.

I would suggest a campaign, preferably organised by IFALPA, that one a given date every one of us who is operating that day, in uniforum, jokes that we have a bomb in our shoe and watch the airline industry grind to a halt within a few hours. You'd soon see the politicians trembling at the outrage from their travelling voters giving them hell over some of the crap we have to put up with every time we try to board our aircraft for work.

If the TSA chimp couldn't figure out that a joke was being made, a joke aimed at the futility of the situation that the pilot doesn't actually need any bomb or weapon to take out his or her aircraft, then that plonker needs their head examining. To insinuate that the pilot faces a possible prison sentence of up to 11 years and all the trouble caused by this joke called the TSA goes to show the absurdity of the situation. As stated in another thread elsewhere, these TSA monkeys think irony is something you prescribe to an anaemic!

Let's see how many pompous idiots jump in here and fail to stand behind this Air France pilot. The rest of us who are pilots should be the first to see the irony of a uniformed pilot reporting for work claiming he has a bomb in his shoe and a sh!t for brain TSA monkey totally missing the point.

LatviaCalling:

Sorry - nothing personal.

I'm just fuming after coming out of another discussion on the same subject, where everyone seemed ready to crucify the security guard for being a jobsworth and pin a medal on the pilot for his hardship.

Having read your additional comments above, though, I have to say I agree with you.

Maybe what's needed is security guards with a greater vested interest in doing the job properly.

Like many pilots I accept the quite absurd screening that I have to go through with resigned boredom.

I am regularly 'frisked' for setting off the extraordinarily variably sensitive arches that we must pass through. My attire varies little but some I walk through with not a bleep and others go off as though I was armed from head to toe.

What I find quite astonishing is the complete refusal to acknowledge the fact that I don't need a weapon to take control of the aeroplane....I already have control!

It is also a littler irritating to observe a general attitude from those in charge in the US that terrorism is a new phenomenon.

The rest of the world has been dealing with it for decades.

Cargo Boy,

I still maintain that it was stupid for the pilot to say he had a bomb in his shoes or shoe. Bells ring and flags go up at those kind of statements. What if he was a terrorist dressed as a pilot with all the credentials?

My second statement was that these security people are not the brightest of the lot, so therefore, I would not joke with them at all. Period.

Konkordsky,

It was the heat of the moment when you use the mail instead of being face to face. Cheers, mate.

Not exactly the same, but I remember being with a colleague at LHR post 9/11 and we were going through the usual staff security checks on our way to board a flight. Apparently our staplers were very threatening items. We thought it was a joke. Apparently not. Super called. We explained we needed then to staple coupons, whole terminal would grind to halt overwhelmed by bits of loose paper floating about, where on earth can we leave them that's convenient when dashing about from landside to airside? He was very reasonable, and we got through no problem. But it could have been awkward because of an over zealous twit. From that shift on, I thought it more prudent to keep my trap shut infront of them and just get on with it.

Bomb in shoe
 

Rolling thunder, you show a great disdain for the fare paying public with your high and mighty comment . From that I take it that the military are now providing a passenger service!

What company do you fly for? I'll make sure my hard earnt cash doesn't go to it in future.

Maxflyer,

I would have to agree with Rolling Thunder about the "smart ass idiot civilians."

Although I don't pilot my own aircraft anymore, I do fly quite often and it amazes me what these vacationers try to take into the cabin. Samurai swords, switchblades and BB pistols "for my son" who'll be sitting right beside me, so don't worry.

Don't they read newspapers or watch TV to know what is allowed or not. Even at the gate check-in you have the option to drop your metal nail files and scissors into a bag and they will be checked into the hold.

No, these people have no idea what is going on and then start raising hell when an item is taken away from them. I'm sad to say that a colleague of mine bought a 16-piece stainless steeel Solingen knife set at the Hamburg airport and tried to take it aboard.

The bells and whistles went off and the Germans did not confiscate the bootly, but put it into a special Lufthansa bag and sent it downstairs where he collected it in Riga. Others have not been so lucky.

I guess after all this rambling, the point is that the average Joe Shmoe has no bloody idea what airport security is all about, despite the warnings, posters and other information. All he knows is that you better take your pocket change out so it does not activate the buzzer.

I agree that it is stupid to argue with the goons, and make silly comments whilst in hearing range of them.

My issue is with the fact that we are screened at all.

Out of all of the various employee groups on the airfield, why screen the only employee group that doesn't need a weapon to take over the airplane?

Newhire ramp employees breeze in the back door without so much as a glance from the dreaded tsA, yet, an airline Captain, who is going to take over an airplane (whether or not he has a screwdriver), are walking to work with no shoes on and getting berated by HS dropouts.

Either flightcrew are trusted, or we are not. If we are not trusted, then we should not be given complete control of a potential WMD...........

If we are trusted, then we should not be standing at work in our socks, while a HS dropout rifles our baggage, looking for toiltries and small tools to pilfer.

Tripower455,

Your argument is only valid if a pilot only had access to his/her individual aircraft. Once beyond security gates, that is not the case.

Sure it seems assinine to hassle a pilot over scissors, etc., when he will shortly be sitting next to a fire axe, and in command and control of a passenger-laden craft. But surely you can see how any employee group, if routinely not screened, has the potential to smuggle firearms/explosives for distribution to comrades in the secure area, for taking control of multiple aircraft.

I don't see terrorists and any employee group being mutually exclusive. If ramp employees are for some reason considered such, I fail to see the logic. Especially considering that a would-be terrorist would find it much easier attaining such a job.

Airport security is indeed a bit of a joke, both for ridiculous policies in some cases, as well as having to deal with the rent-a-cop screeners. Same mentality as the as the mall security guard, or nightclub security 'bouncer', etc. ... they love being the big fish in their little pond at times.

Still...noone should be 'trusted' to the point of coming and going as they please.

Maxflyer, I don't think Rolling thunder is intending to show great disdain toward all the flying public. I think he (or she) refers to some, and I would agree. A few passengers, indeed, have their act together. Rolling thunder has been a helpful contributor in the Passengers and SLF forum.

Indeed. I have great respect for the vast majority of pax. They do indeed pay for all our operations. It is the few idiots that I have no patience for anymore because they never seem to learn and are always out there. "Civilian" in this context is meant as non-staff.

Rollingthunder
 

Ahhh, so there you have it. You just found out pilots are as dumb as any commoner.
Take’m off the high pedestal you put them on and you’ll discover their **** stinks just like yours.

Cargo Boy

Your remarks are right on the money, perfect comments, 10/10.

I make my crust as a security consultant, mainly in third world countries with various terrorist and other problems.

Business is good enough to keep my expensive personal twin prop in the air, even at SE Asia maintenance rates.

The enemy of good security is lack of imagination, lateral thinking, and prompt decisive individual action at the right times.

Most of the TSA screeners fall well short of that standard I am afraid.

I was astounded last year at Miami Intl to see a United Captain getting turned over big style at the security point. I asked the screener if he really thought that the captain was a terrorist, and even if he was, what was the point of searching him for a weapon as he would shortly be flying it :( :* :*

In fact I had a sudden humerous image of the captain pulling out a gun, holding it against his head and saying "take me to Cuba or the skygod gets it !!!!!!

Of course the reaction of the screener was :mad: :mad: :mad:

One final point, when they start arming crew (another strange manoevre), I hope they remember to tell the screeners or there could be a few shocks at security:D

robmac

The Security organisations, in my experience, display warnings at checkpoints to the effect that "Security Is Not a Joke" and "All Statements Will Be Taken Seriously". If they don't all do this, then they can only expect misunderstandings.

If the pilot in question's employer had'nt trained him in this aspect and if warnings were not displayed at the Security point in question, then you'd have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Otherwise, he qualifies as an unbelievable idiot, does he not ?

The Security Authorities have certainly achieved one of their objectives !..........the message has spread - "Don't joke with Security Personnel !"

prattbrat
 

Pedestal? In truth, perhaps. I have respect for any true professional, especially those who deal skillfully with complex events in dangerous environments (read: any flight). In any group there will be some prats.

Usually I prefer to put women on a pedestal, and look up their skirts.

anthony

Have to disagree with you, if security is to be effective, no forms of normal social interaction should be discouraged. If we encourage everyone to act in a certain standard, uncommunicative and unnatural manner, then we actually make it easier for a highly stressed individual to pass unnoticed.

Who screens the screeners? Or could anyone with the right uniform, a faked pass and some knowledge of the setup turn up for work and slip a previously unarmed pax a weapon?

Remeber it takes 2 pilots sometimes 3 to fly an airliner. If one pilot tries to take over aircraft to turn it into a WMD I'm pretty sure the others will try to stop him or her unless they are also in on it. Logical solution : put bomb in shoe and blow the thing to pieces then no one will be able to stop you. Now ask yourself what if this was the case with the AF pilot? what if the security guard let him pass and he blew the aircraft to bits somewhere over the pond? what would happen to said security officer? It would be him facing jail. The guy was just doing his job, you can hardly blame him for covering his own @rse.

Ok the security officer probably didn't look at it from this point of view but it's a hypothetical situation.

Come on! Get real. If the Air France pilot had a bomb in his shoe and intended to get around the 'two or more' pilots in the cockpit concept you are throwing around then why would he announce it to the TSA amoeba? You are missing the whole point just like the TSA dipstick did.

Following your logic that every scenario has to be a possibility you might as well never leave your home because apart from the possibility that you may be subject to terrorism you are also far more likely to be killed on the way to the airport by another brainless TSA monkey driving recklessly.

As robmac has stated, if you try for some form of conformity without the usual giveaway tell-tale signs that would put stress on someone with harmful intent then how are you going to notice it. Not that those TSA tosspots would figure out how to deal with that.

All the rest of the discussion about pax trying to board with knives or whatever, that doesn't matter. You only have to worry about those who have malicious intent and there is almost nothing in the presennt security system to prevent them from boarding. Don't forget, they don't nead sophisticated weapons either, just a nice glass bottle of highly flammable Cognac would do. If you can't turn that into a weapon then you deserve to be caught.

Cracking a joke about the irony of the situation to a brain dead loser and getting arrested for it shows how the mental patients have taken over the asylum. :*

After 1988, all staff had to be scanned; I have no objection to it, but it makes no sense if all staff aren't subject to it.
The way it was explained at my last company was like this: as pass holders, whether aircrew or ground employees, we are trusted. However, if it became known that any employee group were able to enter the secure areas unsearched, those employees' families could be held hostage to force an honest employee to take something airside.
By searching me, the security staff are causing me a few seconds of inconvenience- but protecting my family from harm.
PS. In the UK, the maximum penalty for "joking" that you have a bomb in your luggage is seven years imprisonment. He should have known better; I wonder if he still has a job?

Just a small point here but from my experience of going through US/Canadian security Security ask for shoes to be removed if they cause the detector to beep. (I wear steel toe caps for work) Perhaps this hapless pilots' shoes caused the dreaded beep a metal buckle perhaps and upon being asked to remove his shoes replied in faltering english 'what you think there is a bomb in there?' Where upon he was clapped in irons. Easily done you know!!!

Two observations
1/ The Air France F/O (50 years old) probably does not speak English very fluently which more than likely created more confusion and misunderstanding. I can imagine that when he realised that things were going sour he tried to calm down the security staff member in a rather clumsy way.
2/ I can see the grin on the face of the security staff involved. Finally we have a frog that we can stick on our fork. The anti-French atmosphere must still be around after the Iraq war.
Too far fetched?

As SLF let me weigh in-

First- the AF crewmember deserves what he got- as does anybody who jokes- the signs are posted and very clear. Lack of command of English is the worst possible excuse.

How often do aircrew fly with members they don't know well? If you can't guarantee that a crew member won't "drop" or put something in a locker, then stop complaining about security. The object is the creation of a "clean & secure" area. That means everybody gets screened. I thought we were all in this "together".

I'm also tired of airlines and their employees who act like they are doing me a favor for letting me PAY for transport. When I fly tomorrow it will be on a low fare carrier who wants my business and treats me with respect. Just so you know- between security- which I'm not fond of either-but understand the need for and the cr@p service, as well as the obscene fare (non-stop) to where I'm going I almost drove the 9 hours instead of flying.

Back to cargo Boys eminently sensible remarks. There are so many scenarios that if you want to be paranoid, don't leave home, and even then an out of control bus will probably demolish it and kill you.

What G-ALAN has inadvertently highlit, is that the USA seems to be driven by CYA than combatting a realistic threat.

What if a real terrorist had gotten through while TSA and the police were busy focusing their attention on a Pilot (for christs sake !!!)


Carltonbrowne, I imagine the 7 years is for the tosser who actually intends harm, by making a malicious false bomb threat.

For my money garp has hit on the only logical motive for this pantomime performance, strange about the pilot being French, isn't it ?

robmac

Once I enter a screening area I will nod or shake my head but I refuse to utter one word, other than "get your supervisor." Three major airline pilots in this country have lost their jobs for comments made, and the AF FO will probably be number four.

Yes, everyone needs to be screened. What gets up my nose is when pilots are "randomly" chosen for gate screening. I deadheaded on a flight out of KMIA one morning, got the SSSS curse on my boarding pass, and stood in line for my special treatment. In line with me were a World guy and a Polar guy. So... the only 3 out of ~100 to be "randomly" searched passengers were deadheading pilots - each of us with a 10 year FBI background check and fingerprint screening!

Let's all go reread "Catch-22" - becoming more and more a non-fiction book....

I get screened every working day. They recognise me at security, so if anything they possibly relax a little too much: my briefcase must look pretty jumbled, what with a headset, pens, a clipboard (lotsn of metal clips on it), calculator, sometimes a small square lump of organic material (we have to bring our own meals :rolleyes: )... they rarely stop me, although sometimes the x-ray operator stops the belt at my case, long enough to see whose it is.
When they ask to look inside my bag, or to frisk me, I smile, say "Sure" and do as I'm told. It's over very quickly, and the security staff never hassle me. Of course, this is in an environment where all staff have been searched for nearly 15 years (since 21 December 1988 in fact). As for the US: hopefully, if they stop getting a rise out of pilots, the screeners on a power-trip will lose interest in giving you grief eventually...
I don't mean any of the above as a dig at the US; the searches are never going to stop, but if you obviously don't mind, they'll leave you alone and hassle your grumpy old captain instead! :D

OK, so if I were hell bent on causing problems with an airplane, it would make more sense to try and commandeer a different airplane than the one I was assigned?

It seems asinine, because it IS asinine.

I sure do. It's been done (PSA 1771), but NOT by a pilot (yet, ironically, as a result of that heinous mass murder, by a ground ops employee, pilots and FA's are the only employees that get screened).

I believe it's different elsewhere, but in the states, the only employees that are required to be screened are non SIDA employees, and flight crew. Every other employee (including those with entry level ramp/ops positions) on the airport walks in the back door. I will repeat my question: Does it make sense to screen the ONLY employees who don't need a weapon to "take over" an aircraft, while letting most of the others in the back door? Let me put it another way. Who would the average person place more trust in, an airline captain with many years of verifiable experience in aviation, or a new hire baggage handler?

My point exacly.

100% accurate statement!

Well, many are, and the few that aren't, should be, IMHO..

............been laughing at some of these remarks:D

Question: does anyone KNOW what the AF pilot actually said? No? thought not.

So how can we judge wether or not he deserved it.

Question: does anyone know if the security chap understood what the AF pilot actually said? No? thought not.

Agreed: IF the AF pilot made a remark stating that he had a bomb in his shoes and it was understood that way the he is a right :mad:

BUT, you're talking about the good ole USA where second raters take an over zealous approach to an important job, ( I have experienced this technique there many a time) and the anti-french feeling may well have hightened a red-neck's attitude to the anyone from that part of the world. (NO I am not saying that the security chap WAS/IS a red-neck, just listing the posibilities)

When checking through the security in to / out of USA, I keep my mouth shut, answer Yes/No if possible and I am always polite because I know that this very thing could happen if any security chap/chapess got out of bed the wrong side that morning and wanted to make a point. (The childlike 'I have more power than you do' type of thing):{

And by the way, even with two flight deck members, it only takes one to keep the flight deck door locked when the other goes for a p**s. So it is still feasible for just one pilot to turn his aircraft into a WMD

Happy landings all, off for a sim ride and hope I dont get stuck in security with my Leatherman multi-tool:\

I doubt the average Noo Yawk TSA genius could tell the pilot's nationality just from his accent. Recognized him as a furriner (=highly likely to be a terrorist) for sure, and no doubt treated him accordingly.
Well of course he could be joking or p!ssed off (and undoubtedly was), so why dismiss the possibility ? Zero tolerance = zero common sense. :mad: dolts.

I have believed the common view here that's it's silly to search pilots, since they're the one controlling the airplane, have access to the crash axe, etc.

However, Cyrano makes an important point: The pilot could deliver guns, weapons, etc. to another player past the security checkpoint.

A fictional scenario IF pilots weren't searched: Air Egypt pilot, (who happens to be a closet Islamic Fundi radical in his spare time) smuggles guns into the boarding gate area at JFK. Passes gun(s) off to other radicals who then board an American Airlines flight and hijacks it to oblivion.

Or, substitute an American pilot whose family is being held hostage at home by bad guys ("give this package to Mr. X or your kids get it")

It's easy for us to screen/investigate American pilots, baggage handlers, etc. Mystifies me why we don't screen ground personnel. I guess they made a determination that the foreign pilot Islamic threat was greater than domestic Islamic threat.

But we have no control whatsoever over the pilots that fly to the states. The TSA guys are probably very frustrated over their inability to screen the foreign pilots that fly into New York. Any Saudi airline pilot could steer the plane into the Statue of Liberty before we could warm up an F-16's engine.

So the best we can do is screen ALL pilots in hopes of stopping a foreign pilot from giving weapons to others in the boarding area. We can't just screen foreign pilots. That would be un-PC.

It has been with some interest and bemusement that I have been reading some of the input to this thread.

Surely, the screener was complying with his or her regulations utilizing the training and parameters that have been provided to them by their employer. (Which I guess now is the United States federal government) What is there to gain by vilifying this individual for allegedly doing their job? As others have pointed out I suspect that a language and or cultural difference may be at the root of the problem on this occasion. I am giving the benefit of doubt to a professional flight crewmember that he would know better than to intentionally make jokes of this nature.

If people have a problem with the screening, or some aspects of it, then it is those that legislate and enforce the system that should come under fire. There is not a politician out there however that would think of retreating from the current system. But you also must remember what the whole screening process (and similar measures) is for. The whole exercise is merely for public consumption. It is meant to appease the travelling public that “big brother” is looking after you. The reality is however, that any person(s) bent on mal intent will always know the where, when and how and that gives those individuals the advantage every time. Short of a police state there is not much that can be done about that.

Like screening or not it’s today’s reality. Deal with it, get over it and move on

Armed LEOS, can too. So can rampers, cleaners, gate agents, provisioners, etc.

Here's a factual scenario. Ground ops folks aren't searched (even now). On 12/7/1987, a recently fired USAir ground ops person uses his unsurrendered ID to go in the back door at LAX with a 44 magnum. He boards PSA flight 1771 as a revenue pax, which, by no coincidence, the ex supervisor that fired him is also on. After takeoff, Mr. ground ops gets up, kills his boss, breaks into the cockpit, kills both pilots, then himself, while horrified passengers look on. The BAC 146 breaks up as it approaches mach 1, and little bits of aluminum, plastic and 50+ people rain down on Paso Robles CA. As a result of this incident, passengers understandably cried for better security.

What they got was:

Airline Employees must surrender their ID when they are no longer employed by the airline (Makes perfectly good sense)

Individual Airports had to come up with an FAA approved SIDA (secure ID access) plan for all employees that have access to the ramp (Another good idea, if done correctly)

And, finally, Pilots and flight attendants (but, ironically, not ground ops folks) must submit to passenger screening. (makes absolutely NO sense when viewed in context)

At first, the reason given for the last part was that since pilots and fa's travel to many airports, and SIDA badges are only issued for individual airports, then they couldn't be verified as employees due to the differences in the SIDA programs around the nation. ALPA and other unions tried for YEARS to get some sort of universal SIDA ID for flight crews, especially since we not only go through the local SIDA procedure at our bases, we are much more thoroughly vetted as aircrew to begin with. Why we are still not provided with some sort of biometric ID is beyond me, given the damage that can be done if someone is able to impersonate a pilot all the way to the cockpit. Even Disney World uses biometrics to identify annual pass holders.

IMHO, the reason that we have not gotten any type of universal aircrew ID is due to the eyewash factor of having flight crews screened in front of passengers. Many folks see an easily recognized, authority figure going through the same rigamorole as they are, and conclude that things must be really secure, if they are even checking the pilots (never giving the unseen minions on the ramp/behind the gate podiums, in ops, in provisioning, in mx, cleaners etc etc etc, a second thought).

Why not just do the same to one of the numerous, armed leo's that are constantly riding around on airliners?

I agree that it would be easy to screen ground ops folks, and I am also mystified as to why they are still not screened. As I watched the news on 9/11, my very first thought when the second plane hit was that a ground ops type smuggled weapons into the secure area in BOS. In actuality, they might have done just that. Just because they COULD have carried box cutters on board doesn't mean that they did. Why call attention to yourself like that when your brother can get a job as a cleaner, and place them under a garbage bag in a restroom in the terminal, minimizing the risk of having to carry them past "security"?


IMHO, the only reason that we are still screened has all to do with eyewash and public perception. Ironically, all screening crews does is inconvenience the paying passengers even more when 10 flightcrew jump to the front of the long "security" lines.

I wonder how much the stress of being locked up in the flt deck had on this .

You see crew getting peed off all the time , our jobs are no longer secure and the terrorists are after us . The AF pilot should claim stress , take 6 months off ( paid ) come back and sue the TSA for causing some of the stress in the first place .

Plenty of people go thru security without being searched so the argument of taking something thru and handing it to someone else is flawed .