Pilots and Security

[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.

 

[ifly4food]

Re: 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.

I don't have a choice to not get searched by the government while reporting to work. That's Constitutional?

I'm sick of the "you have the right to refuse screening" argument. FYI, you DON'T have the right to refuse screening. Should you do so you will immediately become a "suspect" and will be arrested by airport security and a 19 year old armed soldier. You will be escorted to a tiny room and interrogated and searched. You will not have your Miranda rights read to you. You will not get to call a lawyer.
All this in the "Land of the Free".
If you think I'm exaggerating, read the FAA security guidelines on the FAA or ALPA website.

 

[RJFlyer]

Re: Re: Unconstitutional?

I don't have a choice to not get searched by the government while reporting to work. That's Constitutional?

I'm sick of the "you have the right to refuse screening" argument. FYI, you DON'T have the right to refuse screening. Should you do so you will immediately become a "suspect" and will be arrested by airport security and a 19 year old armed soldier. You will be escorted to a tiny room and interrogated and searched. You will not have your Miranda rights read to you. You will not get to call a lawyer.
All this in the "Land of the Free".
If you think I'm exaggerating, read the FAA security guidelines on the FAA or ALPA website.

I'm not saying it's not a pain in the butt, it is. But we all made a choice (emphasis on choice) to work in this field, and if we don't like it, we can always drive a bus. There is no constitutional right to be an airline pilot - if there were, it would be unconstitutional for companies not to hire us.

FYI - you DO have the right to refuse screening. I have walked up to security several times, and turned around to go back to the ticket counter to ask the status of a flight. I have never once been 'escorted to a tiny room.'

Been to the Olympics in SLC? A couple hours wait to go through security. You don't have to submit to the screening - watch it on TV.

 

[RJFlyer]

You make some good points, but...

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?

And you still can. You can charter that aircraft and go just about anywhere except an airline terminal. You can also rent a car, take a train (if Amtrak survives, that is), ride Greyhound, ride a bike, walk, or drive a Conestoga wagon if you choose.

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.

And if you rent a car, you must show ID, which you must also show to any law enforcement officer who asks - with or without cause. Again, you are free to choose a 'less stringent' form of transportation.

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.

A good point, but is it so unreasonable to walk through a metal detector? If you don't want your bags searched in front of the world - check them. And for crews - don't pack anything resembling nail clippers, and you should be ok. I have never had to open my suitcase or flight case, because I don't carry any of the 'suspect' items. And if I weren't so cheap and lazy I'd go buy a pair of shoes that don't have a metal shank in them, and then I wouldn't have to take my shoes off, either.

The metal detectors and x-ray machines have been there as long as I can remember - the only thing that's really changed is who can go through (passengers only) and what they can take through.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as sick of going through security as the next guy. I think there has to be a way to make it easier for crews to get to work. But I have no problem at all with having the general traveling public going through this security (even when I'm one of them) in order to possibly keep a bomb or gun off my flight.

 

[ifly4food]

Re: Re: Re: Unconstitutional?

I'm not saying it's not a pain in the butt, it is. But we all made a choice (emphasis on choice) to work in this field, and if we don't like it, we can always drive a bus.

When I chose to become an airline pilot security wasn't like this.
You mean I can drive a bus if I don't like it? Is that what you're saying? Nice. I'd love to spend a month with you. I think Leo may have a job for you at the GO with that attitude.
Is Greyhound even hiring right now? Anybody know their minimums? Any gouge?

There is no constitutional right to be an airline pilot - if there were, it would be unconstitutional for companies not to hire us.

Never said there was. Don't put words in my mouth. I said I have a right not to be arbitrarily detained and searched by the government while reporting to work.

FYI - you DO have the right to refuse screening. I have walked up to security several times, and turned around to go back to the ticket counter to ask the status of a flight. I have never once been 'escorted to a tiny room.

That's a weak argument. You haven't addressed the main point... going to work. Refusing to get searched doesn't get you to ops any quicker.
You didn't present yourself at the checkpoint then refuse. Go ahead and go up to security at DFW tomorrow and try to walk out when they "randomly" decide to search you and your crew. See how that little room really looks then we'll talk.

Been to the Olympics in SLC? A couple hours wait to go through security. You don't have to submit to the screening - watch it on TV.

Apples vs. oranges. Watching the Olympics is not a right. You can choose note to go to the Olympics. You have to go to work. Can't go to work on TV.

 

[RJFlyer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Unconstitutional?

When I chose to become an airline pilot security wasn't like this.
You mean I can drive a bus if I don't like it? Is that what you're saying? Nice. I'd love to spend a month with you. I think Leo may have a job for you at the GO with that attitude.
Is Greyhound even hiring right now? Anybody know their minimums? Any gouge?

Sorry dude, didn't mean to get you so worked up. Your 'Is that what you're saying' reminds me of my girlfriend trying to make my words fit her idea of what she wishes I'd said. And what exactly does my take on the security issue have to do with Leo and jobs at the GO?

Never said there was. Don't put words in my mouth. I said I have a right not to be arbitrarily detained and searched by the government while reporting to work.

Here's what you said:

I don't have a choice to not get searched by the government while reporting to work. That's Constitutional?

Again, where in the constitution does it say you have a right to be an airline pilot?

That's a weak argument. You haven't addressed the main point... going to work. Refusing to get searched doesn't get you to ops any quicker.

It's weak to you because you don't like the point I made. I have addressed the main point. In case you missed it, here it is again:
"..is it so unreasonable to walk through a metal detector? If you don't want your bags searched in front of the world - check them. And for crews - don't pack anything resembling nail clippers, and you should be ok. I have never had to open my suitcase or flight case, because I don't carry any of the 'suspect' items. And if I weren't so cheap and lazy I'd go buy a pair of shoes that don't have a metal shank in them, and then I wouldn't have to take my shoes off, either. . . Don't get me wrong, I'm as sick of going through security as the next guy. I think there has to be a way to make it easier for crews to get to work. But I have no problem at all with having the general traveling public going through this security (even when I'm one of them) in order to possibly keep a bomb or gun off my flight."

You didn't present yourself at the checkpoint then refuse. Go ahead and go up to security at DFW tomorrow and try to walk out when they "randomly" decide to search you and your crew. See how that little room really looks then we'll talk.

Um, yeah, ok. I'll just go up and ask to be 'randomly' searched and then refuse. Will that make you feel better? What does the inside of one of those rooms look like anyway - you'd know, right?

Apples vs. oranges. Watching the Olympics is not a right. You can choose note to go to the Olympics. You have to go to work. Can't go to work on TV.

Not on TV, but I heard Office Depot is hiring. Oh yeah I forgot, IFF has a constitutional right to be an airline pilot.