If they are acting suspiciously -- yes they should be looked at more closely. I stated earlier in posts in this thread that were "moderated" that I support the use of profiling as a method of screening - rather than molesting every grandmother and child flying commerically due political correctness out of fear of offending a segment of the population.

Profiling is used frequently by law enforcement when dealing with serial criminals - there is no reason why it shouldn't be used when dealing with terrorists (another form of serial criminal). Right now, the terrorists of concern to aviation happen to be middle eastern males between the ages of 14 & 40. If you fit into that grouping yourself, oh well - thank your breatheren who acted on 9/11 for the additional attention and screening you will endure.

If a bunch of white guys take over or bomb a flight -- then the profile will have to be adjusted...

In addition, if a group of white males were traveling or even walking the streets or open air maket in a middle eastern country -- I assure you that they would be looked at with a filter of scrutinty, suspicion, and possibly detention and interrogation. Just look at the three white american "college students" who happened to be in the vicinity of a demonstration in Egypt recently...if they had been "brown skinned" would they have been so quickly locked up?? I think not.

You simply can't have it both ways.

I have nothing personally againt Muslims (I disagree with their teachings and theocratic governments), but I do understand that it was Muslim terrorists who created this current travel & TSA screening mess (getting back to the topic of this forum) that we have to deal with -- just as hijackers of old (looking for ransom) created the screening procedures (including WTMDs and bag screening) of the past.

I'm not going to convince a few here with my opinion -- and you certainly aren't going to convince me with yours. On to other discussions...

You're confusing refusing to fly because of a threat with a delay caused by simply maxing out their duty time.



I never had any Behavior Detection voodoo training in recurrent. It must be nice to work for a carrier that's so flush with cash they can blow it on junk science. :p


Sure, just be prepared to stand tall before The Man in the Chief Pilot's Office.

And a judge, if said passenger sues. A PIC's authority ends at precisely the point where they've made the decision. They can't be forced to make a different decision, but they can (and will) be held liable for the effects of that decision. If a small plane calls JFK tower and says "I have an emergency and need to land on 31L now: get everybody else out of the way", ATC will do exactly that. But once he lands, it better be a pretty major emergency.

My question to 10mmAutoFan was not intended to be race baiting but rather to question the extent of the authority of the PIC. I could have equally well used fat people or people with long hair as an example. His earlier post implied that the PIC can pretty much decide who can be a passenger. I agree that the FARs do state that the PIC is the final authority on the safe flight of the plane. However, while I can see that being the case for a private pilot flying in his own plane I was wondering if additional FARs covered commercial operations and airlines. In this case the plane does not belong to the PIC and he is being paid to fly. As he is a pilot I was interested in his take on this.

As far as the question of profiling and suspicious behavior. Absolutely any serious suspicious behavior (such as evidence of a firearm in the possession of a passenger) should be reported. The problem I see is that in a lot of cases “suspicious” behavior are being reported by passengers/FAs and as far as I know all cases have turned out to be unfounded. Plus how can a passenger or pilot determine the exact profile of a person by looking at them. This is where racism comes in. I personally know of two Indians (ex-colleagues) who were detailed shortly after Sep 11 while travelling back to San Diego (one for 24 hours). These people are Hindus with no association to Islam. Pilots and passengers who are Xenophobic or racist can easily use the system now to harass people.

As far as recent attempts of Terror in the air – the Shoe bomber was British I believe as well as the underwear bomber who was from Nigeria and hence black. I don’t see any mention of profiling black people.

As far as asking all Muslims to blame the 9/11 terrorists for extra screening – it’s like introducing extra screening for all white Christian males like 10mmAutoFan entering any predominantly black areas due to the risk of that person being a member of the KKK. After all I believe the KKK is a white Christian organization.

While I do not agree with the TSA’s screening methods I do think that everyone including 10mmAutoFan should be subject to the same screening process as everyone else. We can talk about profiling as much as we want but at the end of the day anyone can attempt what the 9/11 hijackers did including white Christian people. What is the point of waiting until a specific group attempts something before putting them in a “should be profiled” group.

Apparently you can. In the past hijackers were almost always white. They kind of had a lock on the process.

You need to adjust you profile back to where it was. Go back to scrutinizing white males.

Why should someone of a different background who is acting suspiciously be excluded?

Italicized mine: What happens in other countries does not concern me. We have rights in this country that others don't.

But the "brown people committed 9/11 so they are all suspects" argument never fails to amuse me. It shows a complete lack of mathematical skills. The question you are inherently asking is, "What percentage of the 9/11 terrorists were Muslims?" The answer, of course, is 100%.

The problem is, you are asking the wrong question. The correct question, as it pertains to airport security, is "What percentage of Muslims traveling through US airports are terrorists?" The answer, of course, is a number so small as to be statistically insignificant.

Mike

Let me predict what 10mm will say -

only what happened and who did it on 9/11 counts.

Setting aside the hows and whys these people were picked for additional screening, if a security concern is raised shouldn't the whole airplane be offloaded; people, carry on, baggage, cargo, food and beverage supplies and anything else brought on the aircraft at that point and time and then everything inspected before being allowed back on the aircraft?

Why go half way when this kind of thing occurs? Is it really about safety or show?
__________________
Visit the Travel Underground. www.travelunderground.org

I agree intelligent profiling would help. But the key work is “intelligent”. You cannot have people with limited international exposure be the judge / jury here. PIC, FA included. It should be best left to the professionals. From what I read in your post, IMO you seem to fit the first group. There is a big subset in ME (incl: Chechnya, Iran, Afghanistan) where you find white skin, red/blond hair/ , blue/green/grey eyes. Guess they would be excluded from your profile. Right?

To those who wish me to continue in this fruitless debate:

And what constitutes acting suspiciously?

• One male of middle eastern appearance sitting on a plane?
• Two males of middle eastern appearance sitting together on a plane?
• 4 males of middle eastern appearance sitting apart on a plane?
• A white male reading the Koran?
• An Orthodox Jewish male performing morning prayers at the gate at sunrise
• An Orthodox Jewish male putting on Tefillin and praying while in flight because it was the time of day his religion instructs him to do so?

And who makes the determination that one is acting suspiciously?

• The PiC
• A F/A
• A pax?

I can see the first two as being valid within reason (n.b. within reason) but as to the latter, read thru the various threads of a/c returning to the gate because some leisure traveler felt "uncomfortable" about the brown guy in seat 23C or the Orthodox Jewish man putting on Tefillin and praying in flight

Does that apply to white guys who blow up buildings in Oklahoma?

The captain has final authority, no ifs, ands, or buts. But like I've said before, they still have a boss in the Chief Pilot's Office to answer to.

One time when a captain was informed there was a LEO with a firearm on the flight, he asked that he be brought to the cockpit so he could speak to him. Well, the captain starts interrogating the LEO about what type of firearm he had, how it was holstered, etc. The LEO clearly was not used to be questioned like that, and it was not a friendly exchange. He came within just a hair of being denied boarding.

Now the captain would have been completely within his authority to do so, but he would be in hot water in the CP's Office, especially if something happened like the LEO missing testifying in court on account of some Sky God beating his chest.

Okay thanks. I actually fly myself although only privately. I'm familiar with the relevant FARs but I know there are additional FARs for airline operations.

Very true. I know several such people myself. One guy I used to work with is a good example. I thought he was from Europe when I first met him but it turned out he was from Iraq. Many Americans have probably never met people from various parts of the world and their idea of what a terrorist should look like is from their imagination. What's worse is that the system allows for people like this to report so called suspicious people.

As I mentioned in an earlier post many people that have been detained have nothing to do with Islam or terrorism.

I have detailed knowledge that is not present in the media reports, yes. Not personal knowledge.

Not that I am aware of.

Yet a “law abiding” firearm owner wouldn’t take a firearm to the checkpoint. Doing so would make them a “non-law abiding firearm owner”, IOW a criminal, since possession of a firearm at an airport screening checkpoint is against the law. :)

I might be, if that’s what actually happened, but it isn’t.

I'm going to pick a nit here because it's an important one. Possession of a firearm at an airline screening checkpoint is only against the law if there's an intent to take the weapon past the checkpoint. Plenty of "law abiding" firearm owners forget they had their weapon and they still haven't broken the law.