Pilots and Security

[waka]

Anyone that is concerned about security should not have a problem with flight crews going through screening. The recent incidents by US Airways pilots are in no way justified and they are not martyrs. No "rights" were violated, there were no free speech issues here. Folks, the methods and tactics of terrorism are constantly evolving and unpredictable (obviously). Considering this, one cannot be honest with oneself and say that flight crews should not be under scrutiny (perhaps a seperate security gate for crews) as well as pax. Remember the disgruntled Fed Ex pilot that tried to crash the DC-10 in MEM? He was an airline pilot and was legally jumpseating on that plane. Point being is that pilots can indeed be a security risk.

Granted, there are many inconsistencies, useless procedures, hypocritical policies etc. in airport security. These have to be fixed. Until then, we will just have to keep a professional attitude and deal with it by leaving any pride and egos at home and keeping our mouths shut. The only thing that such protests at the security gate will get you is canned, and rightly so.

 

[enigma]

Maybe a pilot can be a security concern, but if that pilot is going to work, he doesn't need a knife or a leatherman to take over the plane. What is so hard for all of you appologists for the stupidity of security screening for on duty pilots to understand?
I agree that off duty pilots should get the same screen as others, and I agree 100% that it is bad to make inappropriate remarks at the checkpoint; BUT there is NO logic in screening a pilot for a pocketknife, when he/she is heading straight for the cockpit. (complete with the controls and a CRASH AXE) If that pilot is a risk, taking his tweezers won't stop him. Once again, we are dealing with symbolism over substance.
regards

 

[Simon Says]

Give me a break Waka,

I strongly disagree that any flight crew that is on the dispatch release or has airport specific credintials need to go through security. For crying out loud!!!!!!!!!!!!! The crew that is on the release works for the company and will be piloting the aircraft. These people are not the ones to worry about!!!!! By the way I am talking about picking up your release from the ticket counter and walking through operations out to your aircraft (which is most of Mesabas operations), I am not talking about the crews that pick up there release at the actual gate of the aircraft.

How can I be anymore convincing.

To top this all off, flight crews seem to be scrutinized more than the average person. You are right in thinking that anyone can get a pilot uniform, but anyone can buy a ticket too. If you are going to hi-jack an airplane why wear a uniform? Wearing a uniform doesnt get you access to the flightdeck, or even access to the aircraft. The only thing that gives you access is your name on the release and your company ID badge. This whole security issue pisses me off to no extent. If I am flying the aircraft, I do not need to be screened. Period. Anyone that wants to dispute that fact, bring it on.

 

[skypine69]

You are wise, young grasshopper!

 

[EagleRJ]

Police officer- has access to a weapon while in the secure area.

Exempt from screening.

Customs agent- has access to a weapon while in the secure area.

Exempt from screening.

National Guard- has access to a weapon while in the secure area.

Exempt from screening.

DEA, FBI, USSS, etc.- has access to a weapon while in the secure area.

Exempt from screening.

Airline pilot- has access to a weapon while in the secure area.

Admitted only after removing hat, pen, watch, ID, keys, cellphone, etc. and placing on X-ray belt, passing through magnetometer and setting it off anyway, disrobing in front of passengers, removing shoes, getting hand wanded and/or frisked, having personal belongings rifled through, having tweezers and nail files confiscated, made to boot up laptop, and made to demonstrate the safety of any beverages.

Makes sense to me!

 

[Dude Groovy]

EagleRJ,
My thoughts exactly. I couldn't have said it better myself!!

 

[ksu_aviator]

You know I think that the whole idea of anyone having to go through security is unconstitutional (not that I don't think security is absolutely necessary).

My belief is that screening every passenger is "Unreasonable Search and Seizure." However, the FAA hides behind the "Commerce Clause" of the Constitution which grants Congress the ability to regulate commerce. The Supreme Court has ruled (wrongly in my opinion) that regulations do not hold the same weight as laws and therefore Constitutional Rights are not applicable.

My point is that the commerce clause does not allow for Constitutional rights to be violated and total screening does violate the Constitution.

But for those of you who are still mad about my other post on this issue and think I'm contridicting myself, I'm not. Just because I think the regulations aren't fair doesn't mean any Joe Blow pilot can violate them and expect to keep his job.

 

[Pilotadjuster]

security screening

Waka is way out in left field. I read a recent column by Dave Gwynn (in Plane & Pilot) about a lambasting he got for carrying a 1 1/2" replica of a .45cal pistol given to him by a homeless vet in the airport. They took him to the screening room, confiscated the "weapon" and didn't look twice at his Swiss Army knife....screeners got a $ bonus, but they lost the "weapon" and the airline was unable to recover it for a "safety" meeting... And that was at least 10 years ago!

Also read another column, whose writer pointed out that no airline pilot had ever hijacked his own aircraft....

more silliness to make people feel good.

Also--I believe the Fedex pilot attacked the flight crew with a hammer from a tool box which was already on board. No security screening would have prevented him from going nuts.

Fly Safe (and watch those lethal tweezers...)

PA

 

[starchkr]

Here is a good security moron story...

On tuesday i had my 1 inch key ring knife removed and confiscated while they allowed me to board with my five inch emergency knife in plain sight in my flight bag. They both passed the original security checkpoint and were only seen by the random check people at the gate. Makes me feel REALLY safe when the big knife can pass both security screens, but hey, that little one on the key chain can't go.

Really makes me wonder where they find these McDonalds rejects.

I feel so much safer now than ever before

 

[regionalcap]

why in the world were you trying to get a knife through security in the first place??? No knives are allowed whatsoever. For someone to attempt to do this in post-9/11 is just asking for trouble.

 

[starchkr]

It is always in my flight bag, and being that i never fly commercially i have never though about it until they took my little one away. If i had rememberred i would have made an effort to leave it somewhere else. My point was to demonstrate what had happened and how much better the security is now.

 

[waka]

here is your break

Simon Says,

The Fed Ex pilot that tried to crash the airplane was on the dispatch release as an ACM.

Next?

 

[tdvalve]

waka,

Your "facts" are somewhat in error. It wasn't a DC-10 and the deranged guy wasn't an ACM. He used the on-board crash ax to attack the pilot and co=pilot.

 

[Guam360]

It was either a DC-10 or MD-11, basically the same thing, and he used a spear gun , which he brought onboard himself.

 

[tdvalve]

It was a B727 and he was the FE. Don't know about the spear gun, you might be right.

 

[DC9stick]

The aircraft was indeed a DC-10 the attacker was a jumpseater employed by Fed X He carried his own weapons on board including hammers and a speargun. Readers Digest printed a condensed version of the book written by one of the crewmembers a couple of years ago. Good reading. That said security screening for assigned crewmembers is rediculous they already have a weapon. Jumpseaters and unassigned crewmembers should still be screened.

Scheduled 14 CFRPart 121 operation of Air Carrier FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC.
Accident occurred Thursday, April 07, 1994 at MEMPHIS, TN
Aircraft:MCDONNEL-DOUGLAS DC-10-30, registration: N306FE
Injuries: 3 Serious, 1 Minor.
THIS OCCURRENCE WAS THE RESULT OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. CONSULT FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

 

[tdvalve]

You're absolutely correct! i was unable to find the incident in the NTSB database because I was using the wrong dates.
Memory is the second thing to go, can't remember what the first thing was!

 

[RJFlyer]

Unconstitutional?

ksu_aviator:

I doubt the security screening can be considered unconstitutional, as it is totally voluntary whether you get screened or not. If you don't want to be screened, you don't go on the flight. Where in the Constitution does it say we have a right to enter the terminal area of an airport? Or to fly on an airliner? It is purely by choice, so IMHO it could not be considered unconstitutional.

 

[Caveman]

I'm not a constitutional scholar and I may be way off base but here is my take on the constitutionality question.

We are protected to freely travel and move about the U.S. I can charter an a/c and go anywhere I want without having to show my 'papers' or submit to an unconstitutiuonal search of my being and belongings. Remember the 4th and 5th ammendments?

In the airline world I must submit to the searches and show my I.D. prior to being allowed to travel freely. If these procedures were only required by the airline I'm conducting business with I would be free to choose another less stringent airline. In that the federal government is requiring, by regulation, all airlines to do this screening whether they want to or not I am being de facto searched or restricted from travelling freely by the U.S. government. IMHO that raises some constitutional issues.

The case could be made that airline travel is such an intrinsic part of life in the U.S. that restricting it in unreasonable ways is a violation of our civil rights. I don't see anyone being restricted from renting Ryder trucks, yet a Ryder truck was used to kill 100+ Americans in a terrorist act.

The main reason we are all enduring these ridiculous security checks is because we are allowing it to happen. As soon as we get tired of being personally violated we will collectively say "No More of this BS". Until then we will keep on being sheep in the name of safety.

"Those that would give up liberty for safety deserve neither."

Not an exact quote, but you get the idea. I think it was either Jefferson or Franklin that said it. They were right on the money.

 

[starchkr]

I believe your ideas about the constitution revolve around "unlawful search and seizure." The only hole in this thought process is that it is now law to have to comply with this kind of search, making it lawful.