Originally Posted by
Mientree
What makes a uniformed on-duty commercial pilot so special that they are not susceptible to bribery? (Or even through coercion of threat to family?)
While it may be silly and boggle the imagination, the reality is that it can happen (and likely has). If you want to discuss from the standpoint that the odds of it happening are small or it's only happened for innocuous banned items like a cupcake in a jar, then I can agree with that assertion.
However, with TSA's "every passenger is a terrorist until proven not" attitude and the small chance of a pilot being bribed not being at all different than the potential of the average passenger being a terrorist, why should the screening be any different?
Exactly right, Mein. I hope we are not proven right, ever.
I find it fascinating that some do not immediately see scenarios such as this, and this is why silly policies get enacted when congress is convinced.
Some feel that since the pilot "could crash the plane" he should not be screened. The pilot would likely not crash their own plane! There also may be a lot of sympathizers with semi-legitimate terrorist causes (not defending terrorism at all, but in the past hijackings were used as a desperate negotiating tactic more than outright disruption.)
To get privileges at a VA government hospital, I had to go through extensive background checks (believe it or not, it is extremely thorough), but I would never want, say, VA physicians to not be screened at all. I'd just want sensible security checks for all standard low-risk passengers. Pilots, military, <insert any large group here> included. X-ray of large items and WTMD. That's it.