[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots?

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

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

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

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!

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

"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

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.

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.

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

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