Pilot walks off job after refusing to go through full body X-ray scanner at airport

What's the purpose of scanning a PILOT? He doesn't need a weapon to take over the plane, HE ALREADY HAS CONTROL OF THE PLANE!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's why the term "Security Theater" is used to describe the farce that TSA airport security is. It's designed to appear as if the airports are secure, when in reality, that have no idea of what they are doing. There is no brain behind the operation. It's all just an act.

Originally posted by CX

Originally posted by MegaMind

Two hands is all it takes ....

edit on 21-10-2010 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)

Fair enough, but you can eliminate a whole lot of other possible risks with a scanner or a pat down.

CX.

Basically you trust the pilot or you don't. Why would it make you really feel better to know the pilot has had a pat down or been scanned? Maybe you think he will bring something dangerous on board that someone else could use? Again where's the trust? If you can't trust him to not bring anything dangerous aboard how can you trust him with your life literally in his hands.

This scare mongering by our beloved Government is turning everyone into a bunch of paranoid nitwits. How many years have the airlines been in business? How many flights are safely made each and every day for those many many years? It's a different world now you may say. Well thanks to our Government it is ...

Also, I remember not long ago there was a debate about pilots actually being able to carry a gun with them.
Imagine that!

I for one would gladly get on a plane piloted by pilots without pat downs or scanning. Heck I would even get on a plane with pilots carrying guns. Why? Because if my pilot has suicidal/homicidal intentions it won't matter anyway.

reply to post by MegaMind

Also, I remember not long ago there was a debate about pilots being able to carry a gun with them.

FFDO.

Federal Flight Deck Officer program, in concert with TSA and the FAM service.

Personally, I don't see the benefit....but, makes some others (pilots) apparently more "comfortable".

I do hope their training includes twisting in their seat, and turning to fire back over their sholder?? Otherwise, in this day especially, with the improved cockpit doors and procedures, I don't personally see the need, anymore...

reply to post by weedwhacker


I agree. Obviously the danger can be eliminated by securing the cockpit from entry by anyone else. This is probably smarter and safer than the pilots having a shootout in the cockpit ....

reply to post by MegaMind


Basically you trust the pilot or you don't. Why would it make you really feel better to know the pilot has had a pat down or been scanned? Maybe you think he will bring something dangerous on board that someone else could use? Again where's the trust? If you can't trust him to not bring anything dangerous aboard how can you trust him with your life literally in his hands.

The only thing I can really think of in regards to this is that perhaps they are worried that a pilot may be moonlighting as a drugs mule?..

Fairly unlikely I agree, but as has been rightly mentioned all the pilot needs to do is fly into an ole building if he/she were a terrorist. He doesn't need a gun or any other form of weapon.

what I don't get is why the need for all of this? have they actually stopped anyone with bad intentions?

seems there is all to powerful trend to solve every problem with new security and law, but what about getting better at enforcing existing laws and following up on intelligence (no we need a new law now because we all just poof and appeared here yesterday and bad people never existed and now we need a new processes end sarcasm)

reply to post by all answers exist


What I don't get is people thinking for half a second that this is constitutional....

Anyone who has read the fourth amendment in the bill of rights and thinks this is constitutional is either a moron or a big fat pu$$y.

Jaden

Originally posted by defcon5
I was an airline ramp supervisor, and if I left the secure area to go out into the public terminal I had to be scanned as well before coming back into it, and that was pre-911. If you didn’t want to go through screening you simply didn't leave the secure area during your shift. Even the screeners themselves, when they go to on break have to be scanned by another screener before being allowed back into the screening area. Its just the rules of the game when you work in a sterile environment. The rules apply equally across the board from the janitorial staff to the airport director of operations. It seems silly, but that is how it is and how it was all the way back into the 1980’s when I first started working for the airlines.

Skycabs, and PSA’s get scanned 100’s of times a day going back and forth from the terminals to the ticket counters.

So now we see why you're so in favor of excessive intrusive behavior by the government and the airline industry.... Money/employment.

We've been hearing the horror stories of the screeners keeping records of people's bodies and showing them to each other after hours.

People are being abused nowadays by overzealous security. I remember when I flew years ago this nit wit of a security lady wanted me to unzip my pants right in front of a whole line of men, women, girls, and boys so that she could shove her bomb detector down my crotch. All because my zipper was made of metal. This was the height of arrogance by the TSA and has influenced/impaired my willingness to fly every since. All she had to do if she really wanted to see my Johnson was to take me to a discreet room as they do overseas and thereby practiced some modicum of common decency.

When people go along just to get along we wind up with a police state.

Good on this pilot for saying no.. And shame on you Mr. Mod for saying yes for a few shekels of coin.

Your compliance and approval with TPTB with their techniquess makes your assignment to moderation on this website highly suspect for yourself and the team who put you into the position that you now hold.

Originally posted by defcon5

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Security is a matter for the airlines to deal with, not The State.

It’s the governments right to run airport security because there are levels of both county and federal jurisdiction in airports.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

I love that word, "rights".. I have the right to not be infringed upon by the state. Terrorism is winning, and people like you are making sure they continue to win.

reply to post by defcon5


Give it a rest man. You've been bested by logic.

Just because you're a mod doesn't mean you're right. The more you know!

Ha love the story...

My father just came back from Hawaii and they tried to get him to go through the scanner and he refused and told them they would have to pat him down. The guy was a little confused but agreed to the pat down. Several others behind him went through the scanner and also were pat down.

Personally, I was thinking my dad was refusing the scanner in hopes it would extend his vacation in Hawaii. haha

I was supposed to fly out to Nashville a couple of weeks ago. I refused the scanner and asked for a pat down. I was told if I opted out of the scanner I would have to submit to a strip search. I refused and told him that a strip search is excessive. The alternative is supposed to be a physical pat down. The guy threatened to "call over an Air Marshall." Of course he ended up calling his manager instead. The manager tried to get me to submit to a strip search. I refused and told him that a simple pat down was all I had to endure.

Long story short I ended up skipping my flight and driving to Nashville.

I don't think they are working very well. TSA agents just don't seem to be getting the hang of how things are supposed to work.

First Experience With Ful Body Scanner

I was flying with my girlfriend, Amy, and even though she knew about the scanners (or had heard me rant about them from time to time), she really didn’t understand my true dislike of them. The two people before us were told to go in the scanners. Then I was next, but I started going to the metal detector instead. I was waiting to be told I had to do the scanner or pulled aside to get a pat-down, but I was not. I just walked through the metal detector while the people in front of me and behind me were all forced into the body scanner. Now that is a big hole in security.

From what I have read, a passenger who does not do the body scanner, must be patted down. However it seemed unorganized and I don’t think the TSA agent at the metal detector realized people were being pushed into the body scanner.

Amy wasn’t so lucky. She felt rushed and not really sure what was going on and didn’t decline being scanned. They made sure she had no foreign items on her, she had to raise her hands and the scanner went around her and then she had to stand outside of the scanner with a TSA agent holding her in a roped off area (everyone had to do this). He was waiting for someone in another area to view her body images and confirm she was clean. He was talking to them via radio, but they didn’t seem to be working. It took about a minute for him to get a response that the two females could go (Amy was one of them). I trust it was a radio error and those images weren’t on the screen any longer than they needed to be.

edit on 21-10-2010 by MikeNice81 because: Add link and quote, trying to fixing formatting issues

Maybe he was embarassed of his size. Maybe he don't care about everyoneelses safty. No one else can get on a plan without goign through the scanners so neither should they.

The pilot probably had a flask of alcohol. I have heard from a pilot that drinking and flying is a lot more common that the public knows.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Bob is that you?
Why havent you called your mother?

Kind of stupid to put the pilot through all the bull a passenger goes through after all he is flying a missile. Didn't we learn that basic lesson from 9/11?

I think where we stand on the events of 9/11 effects are perspective on airport & airline security.
Thus I flew before 9/11 and was fine with the security protocols, I have flown after 9/11 and I am not ok with the security in place now, it's excessive and intrusive, I don't want to fly.
In fact the last time I flew, I was pulled off the line for a pat down in front of everybody, it was embarrassing & humiliating, since nobody before me or after me got one. It was random and although I had nothing to hide I was very unhappy with that level of in your face security.
Actually, I really did wonder, if my posting on ATS had anything to do with it???
I decided after that I would reduce my flights that I make to travel.

Of note it was reported on ATS when the underwear bomber tried his act of terrorism if normal security protocols were enforced he would never had made it on to the plane. They never needed any new ones just enforce what they already had.

We continue to trade our freedoms for extra security, where does it stop, before we are in all out police state pretending to provide security for the masses, when it is just a veneer for control.

reply to post by defcon5


I can't believe your arguing for naked body scanners.

Arguing for the most sickening invasion of privacy ever foisted on a supposedly free public.

Arguing for being bathed in 20-40x the radiation of an x ray on a regular basis.

They just keep it up one level after another till there's cameras in restrooms caused by garbage can bombing terrorists.

Fact:Naked body scanners wouldn't stop the underwear bomber. So they were instituted for nothing other than to dehumanizes and desensitize good people from a slowly creeping totalitarian tyranny.

But you say he should just accept it or get another job. People like you are why they run credit reports before they hire you. Why companies no longer provide healthcare. You make excuses for their agenda.

The governments snipped and killed millions the terrorists are like a ant to their elephant

Originally posted by harrytuttle
What's the purpose of scanning a PILOT? He doesn't need a weapon to take over the plane, HE ALREADY HAS CONTROL OF THE PLANE!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

Harry I sooooo agree with you,.
This is so getting outta hand,.
Props to the pilot...

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by defcon5

 

The government should not be involving itself with airline security. You think it should, but that is something you must deal with.

This matter should be addressed by the free market. Tax payers should not be forced to pay for this inefficient system (over 1 million people on the no-fly list.... yeah. They'll get nudes of your mom too)

If and when the TSA is dissolved, I'm sure there will be airlines which will cater to the type of security that Americans have become accustomed to - but for a fee.

but we've hired the best israeli owned security firms money can buy

2 billion in aid a year and lucrative security contracts and important tech and intelligence for our friendly neighbor