STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16549 posts, RR: 52 Reply 11, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 9787 times:
The pilot made inapropriate comments about his bag exploding during sceening, after he was cleared through the TSA screeners notified the Port Authority Police who boarded his flight and escorted him off for questioning.
He was released, no charges were filed but the flight was cancelled.
Somone should tell these AF pilots to keep their mouths shut, this is the second such incident in the last couple months.
WGW2707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1197 posts, RR: 37 Reply 12, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 9669 times:
JBirdAV8r, do you seriously think that I would actually believe that there would exist a strong possiblity of France being relegated to Category 2 status? It was of course rhetorical statement.
That said, some suprising and much-disputed placements into Category 2 have occured. Argentina, for instance, is in Category 2 largely for political reasons, as it is highly improbable that Aerolineas Argentinas is in terms of safety behind the US majors, in fact, I would feel more comfortable on them than I would on some of the US LCCs and charter operations whose names I shall not disclose for obvious reasons... Two other prominent countries on the Category 2 list are Poland (the inclusion of Poland on the list in my opinion is rather bizarre considering it's a well-run, safe, profitable country rapidly modernizing and generally Westernized) and Greece (this is a more understandable inclusion given the reported lax security at ATH). If France were to be put on the Category 2 list for political reasons, given these notable other members of what one unfortunately might think of as the "Second Rate Club" it would not suprise me.
I do think that Air France definitely needs to instruct their pilots on proper ettiquete at the security checkpoint. It almost seems as though they're itching for a fight, for some issue that will enable them to crusade against the US aviation regulators.....
One other note-I recognize I have made some statements in my post of an unconventional (ok...outlandish) nature, but as daring as these statements may be, I stand beside them and can assure you that proper research was made before I issued them. In 1965, the suggestion of starting an LCC would have seemed downright nutty to most airline business experts.
B747skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 9585 times:
Dear WGW2707 -
Your comments about Aerolineas Argentinas relegated to Category 2 status are much appreciated. I head their 747 flight crew training, and since I was an American citizen (and former PanAm pilot until 1991), I also act as liaison with the FAA in the matters of regaining a Category 1 status. Indeed, there are some "political aspects" as to the reason we are presently Category 2. Sales representatives, from Boeing, have been trying hard to sell us some newer 747 or 777 equipment, and lure us away from similar efforts by Airbus. Having hosted the Boeing team visiting Argentina, with the assistance of many bottles of wine for dinner, the Boeing people admitted that an order for new Boeings would definitely be considered as a valid point in our fitness to regain Category 1 status... I also get that feeling with my dealings with the higher levels of the FAA representatives in Washington DC...
FLYSSC From France, joined Aug 2003, 7353 posts, RR: 58 Reply 15, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 9420 times:
Once again... Welcome to the Fascist States of America...!
They should first try to find what's wrong with their security system before putting a blame on a Pilot's joke... when you know the poor security degree of some US airports. Theses "security" check for the Crews are unusefull, inefficient, and humiliating.
I am glad not to fly to the US anymore and not ready to fly there again !
UAL777CONTRAIL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 9371 times:
These pilots whine about how security sucks and in the mean time they want their airplanes safe?
They need to shut their mouths and get through security. How hard would it be for a French man to shut his pie hole and get through security, oh, wait that was hard, sorry.
Here is a joke, what is the difference between God and a pilot? God knows he's not a pilot. nuff said.
WGW2707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1197 posts, RR: 37 Reply 17, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 9338 times:
OK, here we go.
First of all, in my opinion, pilots should not be required to pass through metal detectors or have their bags scanned, as they already posess control of the most sought after weapon-the airliner itself. Instead, I think a brief pre-flight "interview" conducted in a polite manner, or some form of identity verification/health check would be preferrable. Pilots do need to go through a security proceedure before taking command-however in my opinion their security proceedure should neccessarily be different from the main passenger proceedure. I have every confidence that the TSA will develop an advanced pilot screening proceedure before too long.
In either case, either with the current screening or the more sophisticated screening I have proposed, a pilot making an inappropriate remark should not be permitted to fly. You don't know what's in the minds of pilots who do this. What would it take to drive a pilot over the edge? These inappropriate remarks have got to stop! I don't care whether the pilots who make the remarks are from the Republic of France, the United States of America or the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg-no one who makes those remarks should be permitted to fly an aircraft. The pyschological conditions that would cause a person to make such remarks lead to speculation as to other motives, stress related problems or in general, a state of mind in which the pilot would pose a risk.
B747Skipper, corrupt occurances like this have happened before and will happen again in the US aviation industry. It is unfortunate, and I am sure the USA is not the only country to have these problems. I personally am in favor of abolishing the dual-category system and instead viewing each airline as a seperate entity. For instance, you could have a country with two major airlines, one of which is doing well and has a strong maintenance program and is a really capable, competent organization, a model of operating efficiency, and another airline that has a record of deferred maintenance, unhappy staff, a bad financial position, a strong debt load, and has had a large number of accidents and mechanical failures recently. Obviously, it makes sense to let the first airline fly to the USA while denying the privilege to the second. When a foreign airline wishes to start service to the USA, therefore, in my opinion a safety review (paid for by the airline in question in entirety) would have to be performed, followed by additional inspections (also paid for). This is the best way to validate the safety of an airline.
Until such a system is adopted, I am very sympathetic to any airline which could be the victim of corruption, and the unfortunate impression given by the Boeing staff seem to be rather discouraging (although I would not be suprised to hear of Airbus salesmen engaging in similiar pressure tactics, afterall, business is often unfortunately business).
FraT From Germany, joined Sep 2003, 1101 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 9205 times:
How stupid can someone be, to make these remarks. I'm pretty sure AF has given some advise to their crews after the incident some weeks ago.
So again, to again make such a remark at the same very same airport is nothing but stupid. Of course you can discuss the necessity of crews being searched but as long as the rules are there you should comply with them.
Remarks about fascism in this context disqualify the author (IMO).
FLYSSC From France, joined Aug 2003, 7353 posts, RR: 58 Reply 21, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9138 times:
A340Pilot, you are absolutely right...
But it's much easier to arrest a Pilot for a bad joke : It makes big news and pleases the crowd... ( especially an AF pilot in the US )
When you pretend to rule the world and give lessons to everybody, it's much harder to reconsider your system and procedures, and admit security failure and dysfonction...
Do you really think that, today, a potential terrorist would try to board a plane through the normal passenger path ???? While it is SO EASY to reach an a/c parked on the tarmac from outside, and this is true on most airport in the world... ( remember the team of journalists would boarded a BA 747 at LHR few years ago, and made big feast on board during half the night ? )
Nudelhirsch From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 1438 posts, RR: 19 Reply 22, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 9030 times:
This was one funny joke, Mr. Pilot! Let's see, if You're still laughing, when someone indeed brings a bomb into Your AC, You could invite him to the cockpit for a beer and talk about Your bomb-smuggling-experiences!
Stupid enough, when idiotic pax make these jokes during sceurity check. The security station tries to grant Your own security, You shouldn't try to make these efforts look ridicoulous. Apart from that, an adult man, especially someone with enough brain and mind for flying should be too old and reasonable for this stupid nonsense. Take him away for some minutes, let him feel the pressure of his company when a transatlantic is cancelled, maybe it helps. Oh, do that with all pilots, no matter where they come from.
Actually, when thinking about it - maybe the arrest was a freaking funny joke as well and the pilot just doesn't have any sense of humor...