Another American Airlines Incident

[ifly4food]

As for your rights, you have no right to fly an airplane. You have a privilege. You have no right to fly. You have a privilege. In order to assure the equal placement of this privilege among all (including your true employers; your clients, who are your passengers, and who are ultimately paying your salary). we are all subject to the same precautions. A secure area is designated, and it doesn't matter that a crew member enters or a passenger; everyone must be cleared in to maintain the sanctity of the secure area. Let one person in who is exempt, and the concept of a secure area is compromised and worthless.

I'm not talking about special treatment for crews, I'm talking about equal treatment. Please cite where I asked for special treatment in my original post. However, since you bring it up, you fail to mention one big difference between me and your average passenger. I have undergone a 10 year history and background check. They haven't. This along with being employed by an air carrier allows me to be given "unrestricted access to the SIDA of any airport with airline service when on duty" as stated in the regulations. For me to pass through security while uniformed and appropriately badged is repetitious and unnecessary. It is nothing more than the "eyewash" you described earlier.

Don't speak of giving up rights; you're following guidelines to ensure that you may keep your privilege. Your privilege is not to walk into a secured area unfettered. Your privilege is to walk into a secured area after being subjected to the same precautions as everyone else, and get on an airplane, and not be killed. Where has anyone hindered your rights??

When did going to work become a "privillege"? Name one other industry where you are subjected to as much scrutiny by just reporting to work. Another big difference is that the passenger can refuse the search and leave the airport. I can do neither.

No comparison may be remotely made with George Orwell's fantasy. We have no doubt, no question that the security precautions are necessary. I'm convinced. How many more airliners would you like to see blown up to satisfy your personal minimums? How many more folks with semtex in their shoes do you need? What places you higher than everyone else? What makes your needs greater, and your so-called "rights" more important?

My "so called" rights? Excuse me?
I wouldn't like to see any airliners blown up. But I think we need to take a deep breath here and not panic. Let's do something that will solve the problem and not just "do something" that we will regret.
And as for being "higher than someone else" I see a chip developing on your shoulder. I suspect you have ulterior motives here.

Which specific civil rights have been violated? Can you name them? It sounds good, but I surely don't see it. Help me out.

Re-read the Bill of Rights, specifically the part about protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

 

[ifly4food]

Attempting to put this discussion back on track...
NPR news is reporting that this guy was denied boarding and interrogated by police the day before he got on the plane to cause this incident. Apparently there were problems with his passport and paperwork. He aroused suspicion among airline employees who turned him over to police. According to the report, authorities can't explain how he was allowed to board the next day.

 

[achick]

I don't think anyone is taking the situation lightly. Who on earth would ever imagine that someone would plant explosives in a shoe, or that 9/11 was even a possiblity? I think the humor that BigFlyr was using wasn't meant to be funny. Seriously, to what extent do we have to be checked out/ scaned before we are all safe? We scoff at the security people becasue they are completely inept. The guy never should have gotten through whatever security measures were taken.
As far as the him being a nut, anyone willing to kill themselves "isn't" right in the head.

 

[avbug]

"I have undergone a 10 year history and background check. For me to pass through security while uniformed and appropriately badged is repetitious and unnecessary."

I have undergone the same checks, many times. I've received clearances as well as simply undergoing the checks. I've been fingerprinted, and even conducted checks myself at one time. I've had investigators call old girlfriends, visit former landlords. If you think the little ten year check you submitted is comprehensive, think again. In my case, I've been given the proverbial finger. However, even with all of that, there is substantial background which hasn't even been covered by these investigators.

The fact is that your background check is conducted by the company. You haven't undergone a real check. You've been signed off the the company, with the company stating that they did the check. In most all cases this involves sending notifications to former employers. Perhaps a sweep of your state BCI records, and in cases that are red flagged, a III check and NCIC check may have been warranted (but these are rare). The bottom line is that the current checks don't mean much; that you have a "ten year check" means very little, in fact.

Locally, some two hundred SIDA employees were arrested a week ago after it was determined that they had criminal histories, were illegal aliens, and a host of other undisclosed background concerns. In every case, these individuals were employed by major airlines, the airport authority or city, and other firms approved to conduct these checks.

So should your check allow you unfettered access to a secure area? Not hardly. It doesn't make you special, and it says nothing about you after the time you were checked. Further, ANY security clearance of substance is time limited. That means that people who really hold clearances must undergo full background checks periodically, as the clearances expire. A given is that people do get turned, do go bad. That someone passed a check once only speaks to what is known about their past; it says nothing of who they are now.

Following your logic, after a phase or annual inspection, the airplane should be good to go. Why preflight or check it over...after all, it's already been checked. As pilots we know the absurdity of such a statement. Anyone who understands the least iota of security understands the absurdity of allowing a badged person through a security perimiter, simply because they've been "checked." It doesn't wash.

"Name one other industry where you are subjected to as much scrutiny by just reporting to work. Another big difference is that the passenger can refuse the search and leave the airport. I can do neither. "

Name one industry? How about hundreds of them? Any industry involving security. Workers in gold and diamond mines are subjected to searches entering and leaving the premisis. Anyone entering onto a miliary facility is subject to search at any time, civillian or not. Anyone entering into a federal facility, or most state facilities, is subject to the same. Anyone entering into a facility so posted is subject to the same.

You can't refuse the search and leave the airport? Sure you can. You may lose your job, just as the passenger may lose his or her ticket, and may become the target of an investigation, but yes, you can. That's your right. Complain to your employer. The complaint will fall on deaf ears; they know the search is necessary, even if you don't.

One former civil employer for whom I flew required all employees to sign a statement of understanding that included among other things, the understanding that the employee was subject to surveillance at any time, and in any form. If you read the small print, you may be surprised to find that this isn't an uncommon clause; I've seen it before, and if you work long enough to get a little experience in the industry, it's material you'll see again, too.

"I suspect you have ulterior motives here. "

The suspense is killing me. What might they be?

"Re-read the Bill of Rights, specifically the part about protection from unreasonable search and seizure."

I suspect you speak of the fourth ammendment, which states:

Article the sixth [Amendment IV]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Upon what interpretation or case law do you base a security screening in a common area (read: public) on the security perimeter of an airport to be an infringement of the fourth ammendment? Can you cite the reference, or determine what has been unreasonably siezed?

Unreasonable search has been held to mean without probable cause (broadly defined in case law, by the way), or in lieu thereof, without warrant. Aside from the fact that recently armed terrorists have taken down two of the worlds largest high-rises, several thousand souls, and four fully packed airliners, what probable cause might you deem necessary to establish these security measures?

You may also look to the constitution and follow that to the Aviation Act of 1958 which created the FAA, which requires many of these measures. These measures are constitutionally grounded, and though I certainly don't wish to fill pages with information you should already know and understand as a federally certificated pilot, we can. But you know this already.

There is no unreasonable search and siezure. You may have some shred of evidence that dictates otherwise, and perhaps you can present that before the courts to get the law amended in your favor. If you're in the right in such a presumptious statement, then you owe it to the citizenery of this great nation to take that step. Are you up to it?

If you think the simply proceedures in effect now are onerous, then wait until the more sweeping measures just recently drafted through the government take effect.

As for being unable to walk away from a screening checkpoint; yes you can. However, by evading the ckeckpoint or leaving, you may be deemed to act suspicious. If you act suspicious, or give reason to believe that your actions appear suspicious, you may be searched regardless, and this fits clearly within the scope of reasonable search. It would appear that submitting to a search, by choice or by force within the terminal and SIDA, is reasonable, and should be expected. Play it how you will, but submit, you will.

There have been cases of military operations in the past to foriegn lands to block the flow of drugs. In several cases, the personnel returning acted as mules to bring drugs into the United States. Ironic, huh? Who would have expected it? Give people enough incentive, enough money, threaten their family, or catch them in enough hot water to put on some pressure, and people will do strange things. Have you done anything that someone could use against you? That won't come up in a security screening, most likely, but it can come up in a real investigation by the "bad guys," who won't hesitate to use it against you.

It only takes one person to fold. Something simple. You may not agree to let hand grenades on board. But one pilot may be coerced into carrying something, doing something. It's happened in the past. It can happen in the future. Pilots are not saints. Pilots lie on income taxes like many other people. Pilots have extramarital affairs. Pilots love their children enough that they may do something seemingly innocent to protect them, under threat of torture or death. Pilots are human beings, in other words, subject to the same temptations and pressures that all individuals are. Do you think you are better than those moving through the terminal to sit in the back of the airplane, simply because you sit in the front?

What of flight attendants? What of mechanics, cleaners, and others? If those posessing SIDA identifications were simply allowed to pass, of the hundreds of thousands of crewmembers out there, isn't it possible that just one could be turned? And then what? All that one person need do is secure something aboard the airplane for a connecting passenger to obtain. You probably know the drill, or you should.

NOBODY enters the secure area without being subject to search, or other precautions as determined to be necessary. That applies to crews as to passengers. The system doesn't work unless EVERYBODY plays. Does that make any sense? It's dirt simple. It can't not make sense.

 

[avbug]

This is the second part of my last post. It was too long to be sent as one post. It is all I have to say on the subject.As for the "eyewash," I didn't say it wasn't effective. Soldiers in the terminal, for example, aren't likely to spot or stop a terrorist. However, the presence of armed men sets a tone, creates an atmosphere. It provides ready troops in the event they are needed for crowd control or to establish a hasty perimeter. That's been tried and tested already, and it's worked. The eyewash they provide is largely psychological, but much in security is psychological. Much of the influence a law enforcement officer has is psychological; it's called "officer presence," and it has as much to do with controlling a situation as do chemicals, batons, cuffs, or firearms.

Every part of the security effort counts. Does restricting cars from parking at the dropoff areas prevent a hijacking? No. But it's a level of security. It's eyewash; it reminds the public the measures are sincere. But it's also integral to the overall security picture. It works. How many embassies, barracks, and public buildings have been taken down because someone simply parked outside (Remember Oklahoma City??). Eyewash, but eyewash critical to the overall plan. Take away any single part, and there is a critical failing. Therefore, the entire effort must be taken seriously.

You have not only the right to take it seriously, but the responsibility. Show me one single bonafide example of your civil rights being violated. Show me one single example of bonafide unreasonable search and seizure, as a result of standardized security precautions.

How is it that if you are subjected to the same search and screening proceedings as the passengers, that their experience is justified, but yours is a violation of your civil rights? Don't try the SIDA card or background check excuse. It doesn't fly. The only other possible insinuation is that you are somehow better than the passengers, and I know you don't mean that. The fact is that you must be just as subject as anyone. The person who lets you through has failed.

Having said that, I stood in terminals at several major airports recently, and watched crews waved through without comment simply by showing their ID. I watched them walk to the front of the line and walk through, without any search, or anything but a nod. I watched airport employees do the same with a simple greeting, and through they went.

Security proceedures only work if implemented. You made the statement that It is the job of the government to find a way to weed out the threats without violating my rights. We know that the present proceedures have in no way violated your rights, my rights, or those of the public. You directly stated that the government should find a way to do this, and the government has done just that. You asked for it, you got it. However, these proceedures will only have any effect if we insist on them being unilaterally implemented; applied to all. Whining that we ought to be exempt is not professional, and certainly does not support the spirit nor intent of these proceedures. It only circumvents them.

We are surrounded by starving nations. Our streets are battered by drugs, filled with homeless. We are at a high for unemployment. We are placing our young men again in harms way in an effort to slowly resolve a great threat to our freedom. The world is in chaos. Stop to envision that before you cry about being subject to the same standard practices that the average tax paying citizen must endure. It's necessary, and it applies to all.

I'll conclude all I intend to say about this subject by relating an experience at a foriegn airport. I was in Lae, Papua New Guinea, during some rioting. I had experienced being under siege in a small house on the edge of town, needing a police escort to get groceries, and several harrowing days. I had stopped in Lae just for a connecting flight. I ended up at the airport for two days, where I learned by trial and error that the longest an object could go without being stolen was thirty seconds.

The simplest of objects were targets. I drank orange soda and coca cola, as the water wasn't safe. I found that I placed my drink by my hand and looked away, in 30 seconds it would be gone. It was hard to believe, but true. No law, no control, and that was in the terminal having checked in. I finally got an Air Niugini flight out, and was grateful to be aboard. Several of us made it on board, in fact. Several soldiers wanted our seats, and approached us holding loaded aussie SLR's (FN/FAL rifles). They physically threw us from the airplane to the tarmac prior to the door being shut and the airplane taxiing away without us.

That wasn't uncommon.

If you think what you're seeing here and now is some george orwell fantasy, or some burden that violates your civil rights, then you've not yet had the sleep rubbed from your eyes. The coffee is hot; you should wake up and try it. I've seen what it's like without this security in other cultures, and you aint seen nothing yet, mate. Nothing.

I have no chip. I have a desire to see professionals act like professionals. The system is there for your protection. My job rests on it working, and so does my life. So does yours. Rallying against the system is what the bible referrs to as "kicking against the pricks." Much like someone under a good parachute, who decides that all those darn suspension lines are too hindering, too restrictive. Why not just cut them? There are laws, and I'm not referring to gravity. Security proceedures are established under those laws, and the searches performed are lawful, and NECESSARY.

This subject has seen it's limit, and I'll say no more concerning it. Do as you will.

 

[browntail]

Avbug, your way off base. You seem to miss the whole point of my original post. It plainly states that airline crews are not the problem. I think half the blame lies with the FAA and the other half lies with the individual airlines. They are so slow to embrace technology to make flying safer. They always want to come down on the crews when they had nothing to do with what happened on 9-11. The actual security problem lies with the Arabs and should be dealt with accordingly.

Airline crews should be provided with standardized ID's that can be matched against a Federal database of airline employees. All the major unions have called for this action and still nothing has been done. The FAA has put the pilots at a huge disadvantage. They want to completely strip us of any chance for self defense on our aircraft. Many people were not aware of the fact that the FAA wanted to immediately draft an FAR prohibiting flight crew possession of a weapon. Hello you freaking morons, if the pilots would of had weapons with them that day the outcome would of been completely different. Why did the FAA want to prohibit crews from protecting themselves? Answer, because they are idiots!!!!!!!!! If a pilot wants to carry a gun, then he should be allowed to. We obey the laws of the land better than the darn police officers in America.

The other guys are right, my job is not a privilege! I busted my arse to get where I am! Nobody gave me a silver spoon! I earned my postition!!!

 

[ifly4food]

Avbug,
Your long rant sounds great but is backed up with nothing but heresay and your personal opinions. Thank you for your tongue lashing and for educating us on The Way You Think The Industry Ought To Be. For as good as everyone said you were in a debate, I have to say I'm disappointed. You rant, chide, embellish, and in the end prove nothing. You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. What matters is who can prove they're right to the authorities that can make a difference, not who is the king of internet grandstanding.
You may say I'm copping out by not addresing each point you bring up. You would be right. Nothing I say is going to change your mind. This topic is way off from where it started and only getting worse. Stalemate. It's time to move on.

 

[kilomike]

Well your silly response to avbug's excellent and informative posts on security by acting threatened by having crews undergo the same screening as all the other passengers and calling him a socialist puts you on the "very childish" list.

Frankly, as an airline passenger I would definitely want flight crews to undergo the same screening as the others because it is so easy for a terrorist to dress up like a crewmember and have a fake ID card. GET A GRIP! I DON"T CARE about your attitude that flight crews should be treated with special consideration--that guy behind you dressed in a pilot uniform COULD be a terrorist. Better safe than sorry! I am one of those who buys airline tickets to travel and I pay your salary by being a passenger. I DO NOT WANT to be a passenger on a flight flown by someone who calls reasonable people silly names or by someone who thinks it's OK to let those who look like flight crews slip by and threaten my butt by slipping through the cracks!!!! It's your butt too!!

(I used to work in the airline industry and even back then I never felt that it was a problem for security staff to take a look at my flight bag. I"d rather be safe than sorry. Wouldn't you????)

kilomike

 

[browntail]

Hey citation boy you don't pay my salary! Also answer me this question, how many of the "evil doers" have been WHITE ANGLO SAXON AMERICANS!!!!! You guys that don't fly for the airlines shouldn't even be replying to these comments. You have no clue what the job is like post 9-11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Sleepyhead]

The industry needs to wake up and realize
a determined terrorist doesn't need to
bring a weapon on board.
The only way to stop these people is to
have better screening of WHO gets on
board an airplane.