Pilots and Security

[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.