Another American Airlines Incident

T-handle

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Posts
344
Total Time
6000+
!

He doesn't appear to be just a nut. This is a serious incident. He bypassed a lax security check and was able to get some "Device" in his shoe.

As soon as the rest of the country's airport security companies learned of this incident, they have already began doing random thorough shoe searches. So be prepared to take them off and have a brave person stick their hand in your shoes!
 

BigFlyr

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Posts
358
Total Time
10700+
I can see the day comming when all passengers will be forced to strip down for a full body (cavity) search then forced to wear jumpsuits and hand-cuffs like prisoners just so we won't have to worry that one of our fellow passengers might be a terrorist or some kind of nut that wants to fly the plane!
 
Last edited:

bobbysamd

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
5,710
Total Time
4565
I agree with the above. Yeah, the guy may well be a nut. But the very thought that he got the explosives past security and tried to ignite them in flight scares me, 911 notwithstanding.
 

browntail

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Posts
61
Total Time
Many
I can see the moron security agents now "Captain, could you take off your shoes so I can check them?" YOU Moron I fly the plane!!! Also check the picture out on msnbc. He was obviously not a WHITE AMERICAN so don't start your profiling with us!!!!!!!!!

Freaking Crazy Nuts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

ATA75Pilot

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
67
Total Time
350+
Even before this incident we have had many pilots forced to remove their shoes (as well as belts) when trying to go through security. Most notably it seems to happen at KPHX a lot.
 

achick

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Posts
17
Total Time
n/a
Any person who is willing to blow themselves up is a nut.
It is appalling that he got through security. I always thought
that security was better in Europe. Guess not.

I am ready to take my shoes, underwire bra (and whatever else) off --if it is going to make it safer to fly.
My thoughts are with you guys (and gals).
Merrry Christmas!
 

avbug

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2001
Posts
7,602
Total Time
n/a
The irony of some of these statements amazes me. Security measures are labled moronic, yet here we have iron clad proof that security to the point of inspecting footware is critically necessary.

The "nut" did have explosives in the shoe. Clearly, he had available a deadly weapon, on board the aircraft, and he sucessfully carried it past several levels of security. He wasn't trying to ignite the shoe, but a fuse which was embedded in the explosive material inside the shoe. Therefore, this was a bonafide threat. One quickly learns that professional soldiers are predictable and may be dealt with. Amateurs, however, are infinitely more dangerous. This man was an amateur. Draw your own conclusion.

More interesting was the response of passengers, who formed a surprisingly organized effort to subdue this individual. Note the following exerpt from an AP release on the incident:

...Passengers subdued the man, some taking off their own belts to secure him into his seat, officials said. Two doctors used the airplane's onboard medical kit to sedate him, and the man's shoe was removed.

``When he was attempted to be subdued, he said he was wired,'' said Thomas Kinton, interim executive director of the Massachusetts Port Authority, which runs the airport.

Passenger Eric Debry, 42, of Paris, said he reached over the seat and pulled Reid's arms back.

``I jumped on his shoulder. Two other guys came and took his legs,'' said Debry.

Reid was held down for 10 minutes while others collected about 20 leather belts to restrain him, Debry said.

``I was there in five seconds, and there were already two or three guys on him. It was like everybody knew what they needed to do,'' said passenger Thierry Dugeon, 36, of Paris. He described the shoes as hightop-type basketball sneakers.


The fact is that security IS warranted. Call these people nuts if it makes you feel better, but don't discount the threat.

I should add that the shoe didn't have flour or blackpowder. It wasn't quite that amateur. It contained a plastic explosive with the appearance and texture of C-4. It also appeared to contain a detonator or cap. This wasn't someone trying something off the cuff, nor someone getting excited without having the equipment to back it up. The event itself ended peacefully, and by appearances, the suspect didn't exercise very good judgement in executing his plan. However, we have a valueable look at the potential.

For those who will feel safer with a door on the cockpit that can withstand 30 rounds from an MP5, five rounds from a .44 mag, three blows from a crash ax or sledge hammer, and the repeated rammings of a full beverage cart...enough semtex, C-4, or other plastique can be carried in the heel of a pair of shoes to take the door off the hinges and effect an entry, and enough would be left over to blow a window or hatch and disable the other cabin occupants from mounting an effective resistance. This means that with little more than what this man carried aboard, he had the capability to take down the airplane. Think about that, and then think about it in the hands of someone who really wanted to do it.

Then the folks who think that stun guns and darts in the cockpit are a good idea, or the folks that think pilots shouldn't be armed, come up with some better soloutions for stopping someone in this scenario. Because just after the door breech, one more charge is going to come sailing into the cockpit, and then you're done.

Label the man a nut, and dismiss this as a one-off moronic event. Or take it as seriously as it should be taken, and remember that the folks that perpetrated the 9-11 events still are out there, and have NOT been caught. More, they're not the only ones desirous or capable of doing this sort of thing. It's time to stop deriding security efforts. Such efforts are NOT moronic. It happened already, it's happening already, and it can very easily happen again.

Armed troops in the terminals are eyewash. Wandings at the gate are partially eyewash. But the entire scope of security measures combined are working toward keeping the industry alive, and you and I employed. Don't spit on the ground upon which you walk or the bed in which you lie; it's your livliehood and career, as well as mine. These actions are not moronic; they don't yet go far enough. How much proof do you need? Do you really want to see another aircraft go down while you whine about how hard it is to put up with these searches and proceedures? THEY'RE NECESSARY, without doubt, arguement, or question. Accept that.

A ten year old boy with a .22 handgun is as deadly as a professional soldier. Look at Columbine. Don't discount the threats because they seem humorous; they're not. Had this man succeeded in detonating his device in the lav instead of in general seating, the story might be very different.

Don't cry about being searched. Security is about a sterile environment. Anything that goes in or out should have the same policies and proceedures applied. That environment is critical to our jobs. Don't malign it; its keeping you employed. If you have to endure being searched to maintain the integrity of the SIDA and the terminal environment, then do it without hesitation, without question, and in a manner that demonstrates the leadership and sense of example that passengers rightfully can expect. It's your job. Do it.

We're not in Kansas any more, folks.
 
Last edited:

ifly4food

ifly4food.com
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Posts
956
Total Time
To Muc
I have two issues with your statement...

avbug said:
The "nut" did have explosives in the shoe. Clearly, he had available a deadly weapon, on board the aircraft, and he sucessfully carried it past several levels of security. He wasn't trying to ignite the shoe, but a fuse which was embedded in the explosive material inside the shoe. Therefore, this was a bonafide threat. One quickly learns that professional soldiers are predictable and may be dealt with. Amateurs, however, are infinitely more dangerous. This man was an amateur. Draw your own conclusion.

I should add that the shoe didn't have flour or blackpowder. It wasn't quite that amateur. It contained a plastic explosive with the appearance and texture of C-4. It also appeared to contain a detonator or cap. This wasn't someone trying something off the cuff, nor someone getting excited without having the equipment to back it up. The event itself ended peacefully, and by appearances, the suspect didn't exercise very good judgement in executing his plan. However, we have a valueable look at the potential.
What is the source of this information? I haven't been able to find any official details released yet.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't some sort of electronic detonator necessary to set off C4? I don't think a "fuse" would do it.

Don't cry about being searched. Security is about a sterile environment. Anything that goes in our out should have the same policies and proceedures applied. That environment is critical to our jobs. Don't malign it; its keeping you employed. If you have to endure being searched to maintain the integrity of the SIDA and the terminal environment, then do it without hesitation, without question, and in a manner that demonstrates the leadership and sense of example that passengers rightfully can expect. It's your job. Do it.

We're not in Kansas any more, folks.
I couldn't disagree more with this statement. It's been repeated over and over lately the quote (I believe from Ben Franklin) "Those who give up their civil rights in pursuit of security eventually end up with neither".
The Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights were instituted for a very good reason... to prevent a future government from using a national crisis as an excuse to take away Americans' rights. This is how dictatorships begin... have you ever read the book 1984 by George Orwell?
It is not my job to be harassed as part of the "eyewash" you describe. I will stand up for my civil rights at any cost. It is the job of the government to find a way to weed out threats without violating my rights. The national ID card would be a good start.
If you are willing to give up your rights in the name of security, you may. Perhaps you would like living in Israel or France too, but don't insist I should do the same. Especially for a system that takes pilots nail clippers (because it gives the appearance of being thorough), but misses explosive filled shoes.
 
Last edited:

avbug

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2001
Posts
7,602
Total Time
n/a
First of all, all of that information has been released, and it's public. I cannot verify that C-4 specifically was used; my guess is that it was not C-4 but was a home made or commercial plastic explosive compound.

Explosives are typically discharged using either compression or heat. Some explosives will respond to one, but not the other. Some will respond to both. Some will only respond to both, simultaneously. In the case of most plastic explosives, you may shape them and light them (in small quantities, but they will not explode. Likewise, you may step on them or compress them, and they will not detonate. However, if you roll a small ball of C-4 and light it, then throw it on the ground, someone will be dumb enough to step on it to put it out, and there goes their boot heel.

In the case of a small charge in a shoe heel, the charge could be set off in several ways. A cap or detonator could be used. Such devices may be ignited electronically, or using a fuse. Many times a fuse is a safer and very reliable method of setting off a charge. In such cases, heat must be present. The time to detonation can be controlled reasonably accurately. The device is generally not at risk of transient voltage issues (some caps respond to millivolts, which can be had by brushing one's feet along the carpet, and not a good bet for a shape charge in a shoe).

To answer your question, heat alone may cause a large quantity of explosive to detonate, including C-4. However, in this case, where a fuse may be made to look like a piece of shoe lace, and a detonator may be easily concealed in the shoe or the adjacent shoe, the device is simple, efficient, and easily constructed by anyone with a little time and a few dollars...and you can find it all right on the internet.

On the subject of a "national ID card," let's not forget that every hijacker and terrorist on sept 11th was carrying an authentic legitimate identification issued by the government. That is NO gaurantee, and we all know it.

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.

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??

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?

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

ifly4food

ifly4food.com
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Posts
956
Total Time
To Muc
avbug said:
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

ifly4food.com
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Posts
956
Total Time
To Muc
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

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Posts
17
Total Time
n/a
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

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2001
Posts
7,602
Total Time
n/a
"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

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2001
Posts
7,602
Total Time
n/a
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

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Posts
61
Total Time
Many
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

ifly4food.com
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Posts
956
Total Time
To Muc
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.
 
Last edited:

kilomike

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
155
Total Time
2800
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

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Posts
61
Total Time
Many
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:

Sleepyhead

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Posts
320
Total Time
lots
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.
 
Top