Pages

Jump to bottom

24 comments

1 reine.de.tout  Sat, Dec 25, 2010 3:17:18pm
In the aftermath of the incident, the pilot said he resigned from the program. He added that he didn’t consider that divulging such sensitive information online would stir controversy

Then why exactly did he post it?

He knew exactly what he was doing, it’s quite ridiculous for him to say he didn’t. His purpose for posting it was to stir things up.

2 Kronocide  Sat, Dec 25, 2010 3:17:49pm

Shocka!

3 Michael McBacon  Sat, Dec 25, 2010 5:49:53pm

I figured it was a nontroversy.

4 Killgore Trout  Sat, Dec 25, 2010 6:47:48pm

Here are some clips of the bogus lunchroom video….
Whistleblower: Pilot Video Exposing Airport Security Flaws

He either has no idea what he’s talking about or he’s intentionally lying.

5 Political Atheist  Sat, Dec 25, 2010 6:49:14pm

re: #3 UNIXon
Oh of course that called for a raid on his home, the confiscation of the approved firearm and an attempt to revoke his CCW permit.
///

What does his CCW have to do with the incident? Nothing.
The video does nothing to disqualify him from “in cockpit” carry as utterly unrelated.

Where does it say the ground crew gets screened like passengers? It does not. So even if the lunchroom thing is correct his main point may still be valid. Even if his video is bogus, there is no justification for anything apart from a debunking of the video.

6 Kronocide  Sat, Dec 25, 2010 6:50:33pm

The plot thickens:
[Link: www.sfgate.com…]

7 Kronocide  Sat, Dec 25, 2010 6:53:02pm

re: #5 Rightwingconspirator

Oh of course that called for a raid on his home, the confiscation of the approved firearm and an attempt to revoke his CCW permit.
///

What does his CCW have to do with the incident? Nothing.
The video does nothing to disqualify him from “in cockpit” carry as utterly unrelated.

Where does it say the ground crew gets screened like passengers? It does not. So even if the lunchroom thing is correct his main point may still be valid. Even if his video is bogus, there is no justification for anything apart from a debunking of the video.

Where does it say his home was raided?

To have that level of clearance and security but post videos on the internet is a serious issue.

8 Political Atheist  Sat, Dec 25, 2010 6:54:07pm

re: #6 BigPapa

The big pressure is on. No wonder he “resigned” from the in cockpit carry program. The Feds have that skill in spades. Just ask the guy they thought bombed the Atlanta Olympics. Or the guy they thought did the anthrax attack.

9 Political Atheist  Sat, Dec 25, 2010 7:00:25pm

By and large airline pilots are a pretty steady smart bunch of people. The job has extraordinary requirements. Not many goofballs, or Brietbart types.

10 Political Atheist  Sat, Dec 25, 2010 7:04:30pm

re: #7 BigPapa

“Raid” was an angry choice of words. Burt still, this is chilling, grabbed from the local link. So if he “resigned from the program why confiscate?

[Link: www.news10.net…]
“Three days after he posted a series of six video clips recorded with a cell phone camera at San Francisco International Airport, four federal air marshals and two sheriff’s deputies arrived at his house to confiscate his federally-issued firearm. The pilot recorded that event as well and provided all the video to News10.”

11 Gus  Sat, Dec 25, 2010 7:04:48pm

re: #5 Rightwingconspirator

Oh of course that called for a raid on his home, the confiscation of the approved firearm and an attempt to revoke his CCW permit.
///

What does his CCW have to do with the incident? Nothing.
The video does nothing to disqualify him from “in cockpit” carry as utterly unrelated.

Where does it say the ground crew gets screened like passengers? It does not. So even if the lunchroom thing is correct his main point may still be valid. Even if his video is bogus, there is no justification for anything apart from a debunking of the video.

Nothing in the reports indicated that there was a raid at his place of residence. The air marshals and two deputies simply arrived at his home an he cooperated.

Ground crews are “pre-screened” or should have already earned security clearance as part of their employment.

The Federal Flight Deck Officer program is taken rather seriously by the TSA and there are responsibilities that each officer must adhere to. Their level of authority though is limited to only their aircraft and primarily the flight deck.

Much of the information related to this program is considered to be Sensitive Security Information and cannot be disclosed publicly by either program participants or the Federal Government. The following additional information is releasable and provided for interested volunteers to review and consider prior to submitting an application.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will protect the records of Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) applicants and FFDOs from public disclosure to the full extent of the law and in accordance with required procedures. A recommendation by the volunteer’s employing air carrier will be obtained during the selection process. The air carrier may choose not to make a recommendation on your behalf. The Federal Air Marshal Service will decide whether a pilot is qualified for the program (i.e. air carriers do not have a “veto”) and a no recommendation from the air carrier does not prevent your participation in the program.

[…]

Rights and Responsibilities

• The purchase, possession and use of drugs and alcohol are restricted for FFDOs any time they are in possession of an issued firearm and for a period of time before transporting the firearm.

• FFDOs must submit to inspection of their credentials as needed by authorized TSA employees and law enforcement officers when acting in the capacity of an FFDO.

FFDOs may be suspended or removed from the program and/or fined civil penalties for program violations.

• FFDOs and air carriers employing FFDOs are not eligible for compensation from the government for participation in any aspect of the program.

• It is not required that Air carriers provide their flight crew members time off outside normally scheduled days off for FFDO training and activities.

[Link: www.tsa.gov…]

12 Gus  Sat, Dec 25, 2010 7:05:37pm

re: #10 Rightwingconspirator

“Raid” was an angry choice of words. Burt still, this is chilling, grabbed from the local link. So if he “resigned from the program why confiscate?

[Link: www.news10.net…]
“Three days after he posted a series of six video clips recorded with a cell phone camera at San Francisco International Airport, four federal air marshals and two sheriff’s deputies arrived at his house to confiscate his federally-issued firearm. The pilot recorded that event as well and provided all the video to News10.”

FFDOs are issued firearms and other necessary equipment by the Federal Air Marshal Service.

13 Political Atheist  Sat, Dec 25, 2010 7:06:14pm

re: #7 BigPapa

Posting a video to express an opinion is a problem? He gave up that right too? This is not classified stuff. It’s plain view.

14 Killgore Trout  Sat, Dec 25, 2010 7:07:45pm

re: #5 Rightwingconspirator

Oh of course that called for a raid on his home, the confiscation of the approved firearm and an attempt to revoke his CCW permit.
///

What does his CCW have to do with the incident? Nothing.
The video does nothing to disqualify him from “in cockpit” carry as utterly unrelated.

Where does it say the ground crew gets screened like passengers? It does not. So even if the lunchroom thing is correct his main point may still be valid. Even if his video is bogus, there is no justification for anything apart from a debunking of the video.

I think what it shows is he has an agenda against airport security and that makes him a liability. The fact that he’s being dishonest about it shows he can’t be trusted.

15 Gus  Sat, Dec 25, 2010 7:08:36pm

re: #6 BigPapa

The plot thickens:
[Link: www.sfgate.com…]

All lawyered up with an ambulance chaser. No doubt the pilots union will chime in soon.

16 Prononymous, rogue demon hunter  Sat, Dec 25, 2010 7:10:59pm

re: #9 Rightwingconspirator

And yet the probable truth of this statement doesn’t rule out the possibility that any particular pilot is a cook.

I’d say it is a bit early in this story to be drawing conclusions either way.

17 Political Atheist  Sat, Dec 25, 2010 7:11:34pm

re: #12 Gus 802

From the same link-if correct we do have a difference of opinion. I see retaliation here clear as a bell from the available information. Of course we have some push back later. Big time push back from the guys that hold all the cards. I’ll be curious to see if he gets heat from the FAA by way of his flight cert. Below we have an example of unnecessary pressure-The CCW has nothing to do with any of this. That is a clear indicator.

“At the same time as the federal marshals took the pilot’s gun, a deputy sheriff asked him to surrender his state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon.

A follow-up letter from the sheriff’s department said the CCW permit would be reevaluated following the outcome of the federal investigation.”

18 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 25, 2010 7:13:36pm

re: #12 Gus 802

FFDOs are issued firearms and other necessary equipment by the Federal Air Marshal Service.

Agreed. An issued firearm is a very different matter than a privately owned one used as a licensed CCW. If this guy was just posting a vid of a bathroom, then he should get himself a gig with Andrew Breitbart or whatever Alan Grayson is planning on doing. Because that sort of dishonest hackjob is what those two have been rightly excoriated for.

19 Killgore Trout  Sat, Dec 25, 2010 7:14:27pm

re: #13 Rightwingconspirator

Posting a video to express an opinion is a problem? He gave up that right too? This is not classified stuff. It’s plain view.

Video taping and publishing airport security flaws is a serious problem. The information would be very useful to terrorists.
The fact that he was lying or mistaken about where those doors go is another serious problem. He’s either mistaken or lying and that makes him a bigger problem for airport security than the TSA.

20 Political Atheist  Sat, Dec 25, 2010 7:16:54pm

re: #16 prononymous

True.

Okay kook right? I have had my share of typos lately. LOL.

This story needs some time. I do not mind admitting a pro aviator bias as a past general aviation enthusiast. This may be one rare rabble rouser pilot. But we should recall the difference between trouble maker and whistle blower is all in the eye of the beholder.

21 Gus  Sat, Dec 25, 2010 7:18:14pm

re: #17 Rightwingconspirator

From the same link-if correct we do have a difference of opinion. I see retaliation here clear as a bell from the available information. Of course we have some push back later. Big time push back from the guys that hold all the cards. I’ll be curious to see if he gets heat from the FAA by way of his flight cert. Below we have an example of unnecessary pressure-The CCW has nothing to do with any of this. That is a clear indicator.

“At the same time as the federal marshals took the pilot’s gun, a deputy sheriff asked him to surrender his state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon.

A follow-up letter from the sheriff’s department said the CCW permit would be reevaluated following the outcome of the federal investigation.”

I have no idea what the details are regarding his CCW permit. It could have been issued along with his Federally issued weapon.

The only retaliation I see is one being trumped up by his attorney and his supporters. The TSA is probably doing a routine investigation. Unless he has any prior issues it’s highly unlikely that the FAA would be involved since this looks like it’s outside of their jurisdiction.

Regardless, that was not his weapon.

22 Prononymous, rogue demon hunter  Sat, Dec 25, 2010 7:30:21pm

re: #20 Rightwingconspirator

He may actually be a cook also, you don’t know for sure. lol.

There are some legitimate security concerns about him posting the video. So we will see if the government reaction was too extreme.

23 Political Atheist  Sat, Dec 25, 2010 7:33:47pm

re: #21 Gus 802
Okay I have some real respect for you folks posting above. I’m bending in the wind here. :-) Fair enough on ownership. But in turn understand the CCW is his, separate from the cockpit program. CCW is state issued.
Cockpit carry is all Fed.

24 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Sun, Dec 26, 2010 9:44:12pm

give up guys, security is a sham :) Always has been, it’s always been sleight of hand for the rubes


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 119 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 280 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1