[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots?

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Mike
Marron blurted out:

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?

Law Enforcement (military and civil) check out your background...you
interview...short time later you're given access to material higher up
the "classification food chain."

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.

Sincerely relax...lots of guys with guns on US airliners right now. I
asked a couple flying with us on Monday, "Uhhh, it's shoot to kill
right?" They nodded.

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.

I don't think the issue of a top secret security clearance is the
point, rather here are guys that formerly were "trusted agents" that
are not simply rubber stamped for acceptance in the FFDO program.

Currently over 1000 FFDOs (airline pilots with guns) by the end of
2004 over 5000...not too shabby.

Juvat

Juvat wrote in
:

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Mike
Marron blurted out:

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?

Law Enforcement (military and civil) check out your background...you
interview...short time later you're given access to material higher up
the "classification food chain."

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? Especially when they already undergo regular psy testing
to maintain their commercial flight status.

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)

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.


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.



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.

Sincerely relax...lots of guys with guns on US airliners right now. I
asked a couple flying with us on Monday, "Uhhh, it's shoot to kill
right?" They nodded.

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.
BTW,I believe one is not supposed to be able to tell who the Marshals are
on a flight.






--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

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

Juvat ("juvat" my ass) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

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.

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.

BTW, 'juvat" means what, no balls or glory or sumpthin like that?

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!

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.

I don't think the issue of a top secret security clearance is the
point, rather here are guys that formerly were "trusted agents" that
are not simply rubber stamped for acceptance in the FFDO program.

Currently over 1000 FFDOs (airline pilots with guns) by the end of
2004 over 5000...not too shabby.

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.

Juvat

Semper foo fi foe fum...

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 01:03:54 GMT, Mike Marron
wrote:

Juvat ("juvat" my ass) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

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.

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?

BTW, 'juvat" means what, no balls or glory or sumpthin like that?

"Fortes fortuna juvat"---Fortune favors the brave.

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.

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.
And, BTW, despite what you've seen in the movies, bulletholes in
pressurized cockpits don't result in structural failures or even rapid
decompressions.


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.

Juvat

Semper foo fi foe fum...

Don't ridicule Juvats or Marines. It's very poor taste.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

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

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 18:23:28 GMT, Mike Marron
wrote:

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

I don't understand why you are posting an article that states an opinion,
then asking for information on security clearances without stating your
reasons for seeking the information and/or your opinion on the posted
article. Not that there's anything sinister about that, but I think I can
tell you up front that most of us who have gone through a security clearance
situation don't really talk about it, even in private.....at least that's
been my personal experience. I think I can tell you with some degree of
authority however that those who WILL discuss these things with you failed
the security investigation :-)))

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?

I don't have a clue what DH is alluding to. I had a TS (NATO Top
Secret ATOMAL) but never went to some of the more esoteric levels. You
need a security clearance to access some information about weapons
systems and targeting. Basically there are three levels of security
classification: confidential, secret and top secret. (There are other
levels, but the three pretty much characterize the system).

You get a secret clearance when you qualify for commissioning. It
requires (maybe this has changed), a NAC or National Agency Check.
This is about the level of qualification for a gun purchase--it
involves an FBI and local state background check for various records.
A BI or Background Investigation, is required for a TS clearance. This
involves a credit check, the basic criminal check, and a series of
interview of business and personal references that you've submitted.
It may include further investigation depending upon what is discovered
in the initial interviews.

Regardless of you security clearance level, access to classified
information requires "need to know"--IOW, you can't get a TS clearance
and then go into the vault and read everything there or walk into any
office and see what's going on.

I don't believe you are going to gender much response here with this type of
post; at least from anyone who has actual experience with these matters.
If all you want are opinions on the article, I would suggest you say so. I'm
sure there are those out here with opinions both pro and con on the armed
pilot issue. If this is the case, I'll submit to you that I'm for arming
pilots and in no way interested in discussing the in's and out's of the
security clearance mechanism.

My point exactly. Security clearance and arming individuals are apples
and oranges.

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.

I've got no problem in discussing clearances and what they relate to.
There is nothing classified or related to national security in the
discussion of what it takes to gain a clearance. The issue is what you
can learn after you have the clearance.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 18:23:28 GMT, Mike Marron
wrote:

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

I don't have a clue what DH is alluding to.

Basically, what I'm "alluding to" is that although there's no problem at all
discussing security clearances in the generic sense as you have done here;
if you personally have a security clearance, or even HAD a security
clearance, discussing that clearance, and anything associated with it's
relationship to you personally is bad juju! In fact, I would even go so far
as to say with all due respect, that although the generic information you
gave is fine, I would not have included the fact that you personally had a
clearance, even though the fact can be assumed. A quick call to any local
FBI office will I'm sure confirm this for you if you have any question about
it.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 22:43:18 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 18:23:28 GMT, Mike Marron
wrote:

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

I don't have a clue what DH is alluding to.

Basically, what I'm "alluding to" is that although there's no problem at all
discussing security clearances in the generic sense as you have done here;
if you personally have a security clearance, or even HAD a security
clearance, discussing that clearance, and anything associated with it's
relationship to you personally is bad juju! In fact, I would even go so far
as to say with all due respect, that although the generic information you
gave is fine, I would not have included the fact that you personally had a
clearance, even though the fact can be assumed. A quick call to any local
FBI office will I'm sure confirm this for you if you have any question about
it.
Dudley Henriques

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. 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".

The FBI had nothing to do with security clearances for active duty
military and AFAIK, nothing to do with industrial access which was
handled by an NSA sub-office called "DISCO".

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
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

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?



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net