Meh, don't really care to debate word meanings, and fine, perhaps it was just some line noise and imprecise or misleading statements put forth. The 9/11 hijackers enrolled in commercial flight school, and were well on their way to becoming pilots. It is very, very possible that there are "sleepers" that are enrolled in flight school presently, clean background and possibly US citizens, and it is simply too difficult / not possible to prevent all possible sympathizers or people with friends that may be affiliated with terrorism.

To say that pilots simply can't or won't be bribed is simply false. To say it is a low probability of happening is true. To say it is a *relatively high threat* compared to GRANDMA with US passport being fondled is also true. Way higher a threat. But yes, it is still a low probability. These aren't conflicting statements. But when dealing with this stuff we must use precise statements and sound logic, otherwise we will become like the TSA. That's why I took such issue with your "declarations."

Agreed, giving pilots NO security is a very bad idea IMO, as they may then introduce huge amounts of contraband into sterile area with NO resultant ability to track it (can't review Xray, zero possibility of detection, and never know what was in the innumerable black bags taken every day into the secure area.)

I would say the next weakest link is ground crew or pilots waltzing into the secure area. A trained or terrorist-affiliated pilot would be quite invaluable to mounting an attack. Bribing a pilot remains a possibility, and these guys are human, and to say it is not possible to bribe a US commercial pilot is again simply false.

Are any of you guys old enough to remember FedEx flight 705?