A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Pilots Group Grades U.S. Aviation Security an 'F'



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 10th 05, 05:47 PM
George Patterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pilots Group Grades U.S. Aviation Security an 'F'

By Deborah Charles
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A group of airline pilots gave the U.S. government
failing grades on Thursday in several areas of aviation security including the
screening of employees and cargo, and defending planes from shoulder-fired
missiles.

The Coalition of Airline Pilots Association released its Aviation Security
Report Card that showed aviation security gets average to failing grades in over
a dozen subject areas.
The trade group gave failing "F" grades to the government in five areas --
screening of employees, screening of cargo, high-tech credentialing of crew
members, self-defense training for crew and the plan for countering
shoulder-fired missiles.
The group gave good grades to the government on improved bag screening and on
reinforcing cockpit doors on commercial airplanes.
Jon Safley, president of CAPA, said filling some of the "gaping holes" in
aviation security will require major changes in the way the airlines and
airports do business, and in the way the government manages airline security.
"The technology exists, or could be updated, to address many of these security
problems," said Safley, whose group represents about 22,000 pilots from American
Airlines, United Parcel Service, Southwest Airlines and AirTran Airways .
"But neither the airlines, the airports nor government officials have given
these issues the priority they deserve."
CAPA said that while screening of airline passengers and their bags had improved
since the Sept. 11, 2001, hijacked airline attacks, screening of ramp employees
and cargo has not improved.
"We should have one level of security to protect the American people," Safley
said. "If we're screening passengers, we certainly need to screen employees who
have access to aircraft and baggage. And not screening cargo on all-cargo
carriers invites disaster."
The Department of Homeland Security is studying how it might be able to adapt
anti-missile technology, which is common on military aircraft, for use on U.S.
commercial airliners to thwart shoulder-fired rocket attacks by al Qaeda or
others.
Concern over the possibility that attackers might use shoulder-fired weapons to
down a plane grew after a missile nearly hit an Israeli airliner leaving Kenya
in 2002. Cash-strapped airlines are skeptical of the plan for anti-missile
systems due to high costs and liability.
CAPA also gave low grades to the government on security of airports, saying that
the Transportation Security Administration did not properly or consistently
oversee the security.
It also said there was poor sharing of information on potential threats to
aircraft, and said airlines did not share the crucial information with their
captains.
----------------------------------------------------------------

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.
Ads
  #2  
Old March 10th 05, 10:04 PM
Denny
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

As someone who travels with the clothes I'm wearing and a book to read,
I have scant sympathy for either the airline or the government... For
people flying somewhere the imperative is to get them there safely, not
to get the 70 or 80 pounds of cargo per person there safely...

If I were Czar you would be limited to an overcoat, purse/briefcase,
one laptop or equal size carry on... and that's it... If you want to
ship 80 pounds of baggage, send it by UPS or FedEx...

All right now, at least 300 of you will react in outrage and
indignation... Well, I'm indignant and outraged also because hundreds
of millions of taxpayer dollars, including mine, are being spent on
xray machines and all kinds of technology all because folks ship the
contents of their house by passenger plane...

No baggage, no baggage screeners, just the normal pat down of your
person, no baggage carts, no or minimal xray machines, no lost luggage,
and on, and on... Why the airlines would be forced to drop the ticket
prices, and 2/3 of the airport screeners would be allowed to do
something productive for the national economy...

denny

  #3  
Old March 10th 05, 10:12 PM
Robert M. Gary
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It always ****es me off when I get on with my small carry on (enough
business clothes for a week rolled up real tight) and can't find room
in the overhead because some jerk brough his entire closet with him.

-Robert, CFI

  #4  
Old March 10th 05, 10:15 PM
John Galban
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


George Patterson wrote:
By Deborah Charles
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A group of airline pilots gave the U.S.

government
failing grades on Thursday in several areas of aviation security

including the
screening of employees and cargo, and defending planes from

shoulder-fired
missiles.

snip

Sounds like more fear-mongering to me. Unless every airliner is
going to be popping off IR flares whenever they get below 10,000 ft.,
there's not much the Government can do to protect them from a
Stinger-type shoulder fired missile.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

  #5  
Old March 11th 05, 01:47 PM
OtisWinslow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yup. Good plan. Let's just trash business flying altogether and
let them all drive. Your plan might work okay for people going
someplace for a period of time .. but for business people who
often change their plans frequently .. how do you propose they
get their clothing to be where they are in a timely manner.

The single thing that would make the biggest difference in
security is to allow profiling. Until we look for the terrorists
themselves .. we're just ****ing in the wind.





"Denny" wrote in message
ups.com...
As someone who travels with the clothes I'm wearing and a book to read,
I have scant sympathy for either the airline or the government... For
people flying somewhere the imperative is to get them there safely, not
to get the 70 or 80 pounds of cargo per person there safely...

If I were Czar you would be limited to an overcoat, purse/briefcase,
one laptop or equal size carry on... and that's it... If you want to
ship 80 pounds of baggage, send it by UPS or FedEx...

All right now, at least 300 of you will react in outrage and
indignation... Well, I'm indignant and outraged also because hundreds
of millions of taxpayer dollars, including mine, are being spent on
xray machines and all kinds of technology all because folks ship the
contents of their house by passenger plane...

No baggage, no baggage screeners, just the normal pat down of your
person, no baggage carts, no or minimal xray machines, no lost luggage,
and on, and on... Why the airlines would be forced to drop the ticket
prices, and 2/3 of the airport screeners would be allowed to do
something productive for the national economy...

denny



  #6  
Old March 11th 05, 06:05 PM
Jose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The single thing that would make the biggest difference in
security is to allow profiling. Until we look for the terrorists
themselves .. we're just ****ing in the wind.


Yes, and not just terrorists. We should profile for other criminals
too, such as drug lords, child molesters, embezzlers, welfare cheats,
deadbeat dads, jaywalkers, athiests, and other evil people. Once this
is in place, we can enjoy the free society our forefathers died for.

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
  #7  
Old March 11th 05, 06:48 PM
Doug Carter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jose wrote:
The single thing that would make the biggest difference in
security is to allow profiling. Until we look for the terrorists
themselves .. we're just ****ing in the wind.


Yes, and not just terrorists. We should profile for other criminals
too, such as drug lords, child molesters, embezzlers, welfare cheats,
deadbeat dads, jaywalkers, athiests, and other evil people. Once this
is in place, we can enjoy the free society our forefathers died for.


So on one hand we have organized gangs with a demonstrated ability of
killing thousands of civilians at a time and a strongly stated desire of
killing hundreds of thousands and on the other hand we have embezzlers,
welfare cheats, etc.

If you look really hard Jose, you may be able to dimly make out a
substantive distinction.
  #8  
Old March 11th 05, 07:01 PM
Jose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

If you look really hard Jose, you may be able to dimly make out a substantive distinction.

Yes, =I= can make that distinction. However I do not trust our
government to do so.

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
  #9  
Old March 11th 05, 07:14 PM
Jose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

So on one hand we have organized gangs with a demonstrated ability of killing thousands of civilians at a time and a strongly stated desire of killing hundreds of thousands and on the other hand we have embezzlers, welfare cheats, etc.

If you look really hard Jose, you may be able to dimly make out a substantive distinction.


(oops - pressed the wrong button.)

Yes, =I= can make that distinction. However I do not trust our
government to do so. I have personally been on the wrong end of a
machine gun for insisting (politely) that my film be hand inspected at
LGA rather than run through the X-ray machine. The screener insisted
that there were "secret laws" that applied, something that was only
straightend out (in my favor) when I called the FAA out on them. The
same thing happened to me in DC when I dashed into an alcove (a
legitimate entrance to a museum) in a rainstorm; I didn't want to enter
the museum, but didn't want my film X-rayed. Ten security guards
escorted me back into the rainstorm. (I swear the entire contingent was
called out).

Does "carnivore" ring a bell, or has everyone forgotten the gross
intrusion of privacy =that= entailed? The profile of the Columbine
killers is the same as a good portion of our youth, most of whom are
perfectly good citizens with odd (or not even that odd) tastes.
Profiling effectively criminalizes harmless but unusual behavior, and
this is bad for society in a way that will not be apparant for twenty
years, and cannot be undone.

The presumption of innocence upon which this country is based becomes
nothing more than doubletalk if we need to prove our innocence before
being presumed so.

We are doing =far= more damage to ourselves than the terrorists ever did.

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
  #10  
Old March 11th 05, 10:28 PM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Denny" wrote in message
ups.com...
As someone who travels with the clothes I'm wearing and a book to read,
I have scant sympathy for either the airline or the government...


Well, the rest of us have scant sympathy for your impatience. The fact is,
most people plan to stay at their destination for more than a few hours.
What are you, French? I don't suppose you bathe, either.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 03:26 PM
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund Dr. Guenther Eichhorn Aerobatics 0 May 11th 04 10:43 PM
Here's the Recompiled List of 82 Aircraft Accessible Aviation Museums! Jay Honeck Home Built 18 January 20th 04 05:02 PM
ENHANCED AVIATION SECURITY PACKAGE ANNOUNCED (All "General Aviation Pilots" to Pay $200.00 every two years!) www.agacf.org Piloting 4 December 21st 03 10:08 PM
Aviation is too expensive Chris W Piloting 71 August 21st 03 11:54 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.