If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Rasimus wrote:
Mike Marron wrote: Juvat ("juvat" my ass) wrote: Sincerely relax...lots of guys with guns on US airliners right now. Jeez Juvat, *that* really helped. I just had my wife read your response but I'm afraid your "RELAX.......LOTS OF GUYS WITH GUNS ON US AIRLINERS RIGHT NOW" failed to set her at ease, if ya' know what I mean. Lemme see, your wife is one of those who doesn't like good guys with guns around her, but ignores the fact that the bad guys with guns will be there regardless? She doesn't even THINK like that, Ed. Help me out here. Come up with something other than, "...lots of guys with GUNS on airliners right now." Thanks! BTW, 'juvat" means what, no balls or glory or sumpthin like that? "Fortes fortuna juvat"---Fortune favors the brave. Ouh Rah! (sp?) When used in conjunction with an F-4 type (or Vipers now) it refers to someone from Kunsan Korea. The Juvats are well known as a fighter squadron. OK., But just who is this "Juvat" on RAM whose so obsessed with "exhausting sessions" and "blurting out" and "Victoria's Secret?" Nevermind Victoria's Secret (who ain't obsessed?) but you get my drift, no? asked a couple flying with us on Monday, "Uhhh, it's shoot to kill right?" They nodded. Fun fun fun!!! Shootout at the OK corral at FL340! Well, if the choice is giving in to an asshole with a box cutter or having a shootout at FL 340, what do you think is the better choice. Agreed (again, it's my WIFE whose all worried -- not me). And, BTW, despite what you've seen in the movies, bulletholes in pressurized cockpits don't result in structural failures or even rapid decompressions. Thank Gawd my poor wife just went to bed so she won't be having any nightmares over any "bulletholes in pressurized cockpits!" Please understand, "lots of guys with guns on airliners right now" sounds well and good to me, but I'm afraid you failed to reassure my poor wife that she's any safer by your response. Maybe your wife needs to think through the problem. If Juvat told your wife that she's safe flying on airliners these days due to "LOTS OF GUYS WITH GUNS ON US AIRLINERS RIGHT NOW" would she think through the problem? Juvat Semper foo fi foe fum... Don't ridicule Juvats or Marines. It's very poor taste. Fresh Stone Crab, anyone? Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 18:23:28 GMT, Mike Marron
wrote: I've been following this thread with interest and was just curious as to exactly what constitutes a "security clearance." Can't you even provide us with a vague, thumbnail sketch of what a top secret security clearance is? A clearance is a signed piece of paper allowing the named person to access classified material, subject to a need to know. No more, no less. With family flying down to visit over the holidays, my darling wife is all worried about their safety due to the raised threat-level from Arab terrorists. I can certainly understand why guys like you and Ed aren't interested in discussing the in's and out's of the security clearance mechanism, but again, since the topic was brought up can't either of you briefly explain what a security clearance is and why it's so important? Again, just asking and please pardon my ignorance. A clearance is just what it sounds like, clearance to access classified material. Why is it important? If you are being paid to work on something classified, you can't do much if you can't even read the documentation. Granting a clearance includes conducting a background investigation, which is what you're probably asking about. A background investigation begins with the person filling out a form listing education, employment, residences, and references. Employers and schools are contacted to verify dates, references are interviewed, and an assessment of the person's reliability at keeping classified material classified is made. Based on this, the clearance is either granted or refused. What are some factors in granting or refusing a clearance? Whether the person has any characteristics that might make the person subject to pressure to reveal classified information is the main one. Being a closeted homosexual leaves you open to blackmail, but being out of the closet doesn't, for example. Also, whether the person might be unstable, like being an alcoholic or the member of an odd sect (religious or political) or carrying a grudge. Being in debt or having too much money is something they ask about, too. The whole investigation and report come down to whether it's a good idea to trust the person to keep classified information classified. Mary -- Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 23:12:31 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote: Well, although you may have good reason for what you say, in my experience, both in the military and in industry, there was never any problem in the statement that one possessed a security clearance. In fact, in industry, your company ID badge displayed stars to quickly identify the level of your clearance. Two stars = secret, three stars = TS. NASA stopped doing that a while back. We used colored borders on the badges, so we all had to get new badges without that information. And, your access to specific compartmentalized programs (i.e. "black") was displayed with a letter and number code in an "egg crate" at the bottom of your badge. It was easy to determine if someone had access to a program by looking at your badge and theirs--same numbers and in a cleared location, OK to discuss if they reasonably had "need to know". NASA uses lists of people briefed onto programs (i.e. having the need to know for that program), rather than putting it on the badge. We used to use badge coding, with a little YF-12 planform indicating access to Senior Crown, for example. We stopped doing that when we stopped coding clearance levels. I think we were told to stop. Seriously, there's nothing magic about security clearances. The security issue is not who has one, but what is accessible after the fact. There is little to be gained in status by possession of a clearance and nothing to be added by ascribing some sort of "bad juju" to the system. The status, such as there is, comes with the need to know, with being cleared onto a program. Getting a clearance is a lot easier than getting cleared onto a program. Mary -- Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Mary Shafer wrote:
Mike Marron wrote: I've been following this thread with interest and was just curious as to exactly what constitutes a "security clearance." Can't you even provide us with a vague, thumbnail sketch of what a top secret security clearance is? A clearance is a signed piece of paper allowing the named person to access classified material, subject to a need to know. No more, no less. With family flying down to visit over the holidays, my darling wife is all worried about their safety due to the raised threat-level from Arab terrorists. I can certainly understand why guys like you and Ed aren't interested in discussing the in's and out's of the security clearance mechanism, but again, since the topic was brought up can't either of you briefly explain what a security clearance is and why it's so important? Again, just asking and please pardon my ignorance. A clearance is just what it sounds like, clearance to access classified material. Why is it important? If you are being paid to work on something classified, you can't do much if you can't even read the documentation. Granting a clearance includes conducting a background investigation, which is what you're probably asking about. A background investigation begins with the person filling out a form listing education, employment, residences, and references. Employers and schools are contacted to verify dates, references are interviewed, and an assessment of the person's reliability at keeping classified material classified is made. Based on this, the clearance is either granted or refused. What are some factors in granting or refusing a clearance? Whether the person has any characteristics that might make the person subject to pressure to reveal classified information is the main one. Being a closeted homosexual leaves you open to blackmail, but being out of the closet doesn't, for example. Also, whether the person might be unstable, like being an alcoholic or the member of an odd sect (religious or political) or carrying a grudge. Being in debt or having too much money is something they ask about, too. The whole investigation and report come down to whether it's a good idea to trust the person to keep classified information classified. You;re the best, Mary. Thanks! |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 01:28:26 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
wrote: If and when we get back to everyone arguing about how many rivets there are in each square foot of wing on the airplane, call me! :-) Do we count the rivets down inside the wing, that got pulled out when we spun the airplane, too? Mary -- Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Mary Shafer" wrote in message ... On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 01:28:26 GMT, "Dudley Henriques" wrote: If and when we get back to everyone arguing about how many rivets there are in each square foot of wing on the airplane, call me! :-) Do we count the rivets down inside the wing, that got pulled out when we spun the airplane, too? Mary I used to know a guy who thought you hadn't over g'd an airplane unless you broke it. He owned a Globe Swift. Cute little airplane; built like a fighter. He actually thought it WAS a fighter the way he flew it. Rolls....spins.....you name it! It was the Snap rolls that got him I think.....multiple snap rolls at that!! I never flew it, but I had to move it one afternoon to clear a parking space for a Bearcat. I started it up and began to taxi it. There were noises coming out of that thing that would have terrified a sane person, let alone ME!! :-) After I parked it I tugged on the tips. It was flexing so bad something HAD to be broken in there. Later we discovered the airplane had two broken panels inside the wings. Most of the wing was stressed and twisted; little bits and pieces of metal (AND a full pack of Lucky Strikes) bouncing all around in there. To my knowledge, after we told him what we had discovered, he never flew it again. I believe he junked it after he trucked it off the field. It's amazing what gets down inside an airplane isn't it? In the old AT6, if you were giving dual and either the guy in front forgot and left the canopy cracked open, or you forgot to tell him to close it, on takeoff, every bit of junk that had accumulated under the floor rails was sucked up and blasted you in the face :-) We used to yank the inspection plates once in a while just to see what the hell was in those dark foreboding places :-) It was sort of like when you take the cushions off your old stuffed couch and find all sorts of goodies buried in there.....loose change.......old stale popcorn........that blue sock you lost five years ago.......and of course a stuffed animal or two!!!! :-))) Dudley |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Rasimus wrote:
Seriously, there's nothing magic about security clearances. The security issue is not who has one, but what is accessible after the fact. There is little to be gained in status by possession of a clearance and nothing to be added by ascribing some sort of "bad juju" to the system. Ed Rasimus A cool breath of reason in this silly thread...this paragraph is exactly correct. Everyone who ever flew (or sailed) in the military ASW world (among many others) has (or has had) one, and there are thousands. -- -Gord. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Yanik wrote:
Ed Rasimus wrote in : My point exactly. Security clearance and arming individuals are apples and oranges. A security clearance is a form of TRUST,is it not? It says something about a person's character. Would an untrustworthy person be able to obtain a security clearance? I don't think that it's much of a guarantee Jim. The cops do a check on you, your reputation, your credit rating and stuff like that but what can be told by that?...I suppose you'd be refused if you were a real bad cat but then you'd likely have been in poop by then in the military anyway. Can't speak about civilian clearances though, I've only held military ones...oops wasn't supposed to tell snort -- -Gord. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Jim Yanik
blurted out: It's a judgement about trustworthyness.If one can trust a military pilot with a security clearance(and to carry a gun while flying a military plane),why must they be psychologically tested AGAIN for being armed in a commercial plane? Why? Don't have an answer. Especially when they already undergo regular psy testing to maintain their commercial flight status. That is NOT the case in the US. For a fact there are (and have been) airline pilots that have a habit of no getting along well with the other pilot(s) in the cockpit. 12 years ago one former co-worker was sent to the Mayo clinic after I removed myself from the trip (he was an insecure little ****)...I was the 4th guy in less than six months to get off a trip with him. The Mayo clinic shrink's report said, "Yep he's an asshole." This guy kept his job for another 10 years after repeated trips to the Mayo he was finally diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder...pffffttt...he's outta here finally. Or how about the Captain that was a former police officer, this guy picks fights at layover hotels if he thinks too much noise is coming from adjoining rooms. If they are stable enough to pilot a plane full of passengers,why would they NOT be stable enough to carry a firearm? (on a commercial plane) See my two examples above. Conversely,if a pilot is not judged stable enough to be armed while aboard a commercial plane,are they stable/reliable enough to perform the job of pilot if unarmed? Fail that extra psy-test,and there goes your livelihood. If not,please explain why. Again we do not go through routine psych re-screening. The extra psy test is just a way of 1;scaring off interested pilots,2;an added obstruction solely for the purpose of limiting the number of FFDOs. Some guys don't like guns. Some guys don't want to deal with the hassles of securing their weapon in various circumstances. I have not heard from a single guy that he was afraid of ANY psych screening. Doesn't mean there aren't cases out there. Except there's not enough Sky Marshals to put even ONE on every daily US flight,not considering international flights.And standard practice is TWO Marshals per flight.Chances are better that a flight has NO Marshals aboard. Think about it...not every single flight is a probable target. But I've flown with lots of FAMs, especially if there are gentlemen of arab persuasion on the flight. And now days LEOs (Law Enforcement Officers) on vacation with their families are packing heat. As I posted previously...lots of guys with guns on airplanes. BTW,I believe one is not supposed to be able to tell who the Marshals are on a flight. "One" being a passenger...correct, "one" being a flight crew...incorrect. Juvat |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Mike
Marron blurted out: Jeez Juvat, *that* really helped. I just had my wife read your response but I'm afraid your "RELAX.......LOTS OF GUYS WITH GUNS ON US AIRLINERS RIGHT NOW" failed to set her at ease, if ya' know what I mean. So if you suspected that your wife would become more unsettled about travel due to my remarks...why upset her more? [shaking head curiously] Tell her, that airline crews and FAMs are at a heightened state of readiness. We are! asked a couple flying with us on Monday, "Uhhh, it's shoot to kill right?" They nodded. Fun fun fun!!! Shootout at the OK corral at FL340! Given the options presented by those islamist ****s, what is YOUR solution? Please understand, "lots of guys with guns on airliners right now" sounds well and good to me, but I'm afraid you failed to reassure my poor wife that she's any safer by your response. Look, if your wife is offended by somebody writing ****, don't let her read this. Filter my response for her. Lots of folks are nervous fliers, I get it, I understand that. Lots of folks are nervous about terrorists right now, I get that too. Islamist ****s are out there "testing" the system, I know this personally. You don't hear about it...but these ****s are getting arrested when airplanes land. Juvat |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Bush Pilots Fly-In. South Africa. | Bush Air | Home Built | 0 | May 25th 04 06:18 AM |
Joint German-Israeli airforce excersie (Israeli airforce beats German pilots) | Quant | Military Aviation | 8 | September 25th 03 05:41 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
Israeli Air Force to lose Middle East Air Superiority Capability to the Saudis in the near future | Jack White | Military Aviation | 71 | September 21st 03 02:58 PM |