Known Crew Member

I think people who enjoy sugary deserts, the smell of pine, and having a pet cat shouldn't be permitted to fly at all. If you disagree you aren't as informed as I
 
JGoodish said:
Pre-check is supposedly being phased out for those who have not applied and passed the background check process, which is really the only way that pre-check makes sense from a security standpoint. Since I've done the application and background check, and book with my KTN, I've received pre-check 100% of the time.

Airports which do not have a separate pre-check lane, or where that lane is not staffed at a particular time, do the yellow card. It's been perhaps a year since I've been to Newark, but I believe that at the time, not all terminals were equipped with pre-check.

I would assume that crew would receive priority screening in any situation, and that's generally what I've observed at airports where crew have used the passenger screening lanes.


JKG
Click to expand...
Background checks cannot weed out future inter. See: Germanwings.

Past travel performance is as good as background checks: if you've been traveling 75,000 miles a year for 20 years, pulling your credit report or sppeding tickets won't be a very useful indicator. Oh, and folks with TS/SCI government clearances still have to apply for and pay for PreCheck.
 
wsuffa said:
Background checks cannot weed out future inter. See: Germanwings.

Past travel performance is as good as background checks: if you've been traveling 75,000 miles a year for 20 years, pulling your credit report or sppeding tickets won't be a very useful indicator. Oh, and folks with TS/SCI government clearances still have to apply for and pay for PreCheck.
Click to expand...

The problem with criminal background checks is that everyone is "clean" until they're not, which is why I have a pet peeve with schools, day cares, church nurseries, and just about everyone else under the sun requiring background checks, especially to work around children. My issue isn't so much with the requirement for background checks as it is with the assumption of many organizations that a "clean" check means there's no risk. The checks are done, but yet the thieves and pedophiles still seem to slip through.

I agree that past travel performance provides a relevant data point in assessing risk, but then the question becomes how much history is required in order to establish a good risk profile. The other problem is that travel history reveals nothing about an individual's criminal record, which is likely a better indicator of risk for future criminal activity. Preventing criminal activity on passenger aircraft is ostensibly why the screening process exists. It is much more uniform, though not necessarily "better," to use the criminal background check process in order to establish an individual's risk profile when criminal activity is the target.

As for Germanwings, it appears that the pilot's medical history was relevant, but it was also known. If that is true, then the problem may have been with corporate protocol or management, which should have prevented someone with such a medical history from accessing the flight deck. We can debate about the details, but at the end of the day, the people in the back have to trust the people up front. There's never going to be any process or check which is going to provide an absolute guarantee.


JKG
 
KCM would be great, especially when you're jumpseating. CASS would also be great, but there is a lot of red tape and other BS that makes it difficult to get. The company I work for can't get it because they don't have a 12,5 airplane, even though it's a twin turbine.
 
DavidWhite said:
KCM would be great, especially when you're jumpseating. CASS would also be great, but there is a lot of red tape and other BS that makes it difficult to get. The company I work for can't get it because they don't have a 12,5 airplane, even though it's a twin turbine.
Click to expand...
I don't have any 12.5s, and neither does CapeAir, as well as many others who are in CASS and KCM... That's apparently a common misconception that it's a requirement. When we were in talks with AA for CASS recipricocy (to no avail... :mad2:), they got mad that we even had it and went to ALPA to complain. Never really heard back from either side regarding that, but at least AA has stopped their whining...
 
HighFlyingA380 said:
I don't have any 12.5s, and neither does CapeAir, as well as many others who are in CASS and KCM... That's apparently a common misconception that it's a requirement. When we were in talks with AA for CASS recipricocy (to no avail... :mad2:), they got mad that we even had it and went to ALPA to complain. Never really heard back from either side regarding that, but at least AA has stopped their whining...
Click to expand...
Not sure about your company, but Cape Air does indeed have 12.5 airplanes.
 
Kritchlow said:
Not sure about your company, but Cape Air does indeed have 12.5 airplanes.
Click to expand...
Well shoot, I wasn't thinking about the code-shares, but I suppose if they're on the same certificate, then they would count... Thanks.
 
HighFlyingA380 said:
Well shoot, I wasn't thinking about the code-shares, but I suppose if they're on the same certificate, then they would count... Thanks.
Click to expand...
Not even the code shares... Cape Air flies ATR's out of San Juan. They have one, maybe two..??
 
They have both a 135, and 121 certificate.
 
Kritchlow said:
Not even the code shares... Cape Air flies ATR's out of San Juan. They have one, maybe two..??
Click to expand...
Ok, thanks, learn something new everyday... I was just going off of Wikipedia and random bits that I hear around the airport that says they have 2 ATRs that operate in Micronesia on a codeshare as United Express.

Sort for the thread derailment; continue... Lol
 
HighFlyingA380 said:
Ok, thanks, learn something new everyday... I was just going off of Wikipedia and random bits that I hear around the airport that says they have 2 ATRs that operate in Micronesia on a codeshare as United Express.

Sort for the thread derailment; continue... Lol
Click to expand...
They very well may be coded as United, but they are still Cape Air.
I'm not positive, but I think the northeast 402's may be coded as JetBlue.

Just because a certificate holder is coded with a major airline, does NOT make them part of that airline. It's still the original small guy that has a contract with the big boys.

Does that make sense?? I realize it's hard to tell these days... One books on American. It looks like American Airlines in every way, but it is actually Republic Airlines on contract. (That's just one example).
 
gitmo234 said:
I think people who enjoy sugary deserts, the smell of pine, and having a pet cat shouldn't be permitted to fly at all. If you disagree you aren't as informed as I
Click to expand...

Not really clear on this one... Is this suppose to be some sort of dig?

If not, I apologize for misunderstanding.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I don't think anyone should have to wait in those stupid lines.

As far as KCM and CASS. Any air carrier certificated operation should be able to have access for their crews, regardless of 121 or 135
Click to expand...
I agree about the lines, but I don't have the solution to that problem.

I do not believe 135 guys should have access to KCM. Part of the KCM mentality, as posted earlier by (can't remembr), is that it makes zero difference what the crew flying the airplane has in their luggage. If they want to do damage, they can.

"As needed" should be the standard. That includes me, as we can use KCM even for personal use.

Just saying.. all this info is readily available on the KCM sites. I'm not disclosing any info.
 
Kritchlow said:
I agree about the lines, but I don't have the solution to that problem.

I do not believe 135 guys should have access to KCM. Part of the KCM mentality, as posted earlier by (can't remembr), is that it makes zero difference what the crew flying the airplane has in their luggage. If they want to do damage, they can.

"As needed" should be the standard. That includes me, as we can use KCM even for personal use.

Just saying.. all this info is readily available on the KCM sites. I'm not disclosing any info.
Click to expand...

Ummm anyone with cockpit jumpseat prices (CASS) should get KCM. I can walk over and touch Alaska Airlines 737 when it comes to Kodiak....
 
Granted I don't have CASS, either.
 
HighFlyingA380 said:
neither does CapeAir, as well as many others
Click to expand...

I was looking on the listed 135 operators who participate in KCM and didn't see 9K. Its good news since I'm shipping up to Boston to start with them next week.
 
NJP_MAN said:
I was looking on the listed 135 operators who participate in KCM and didn't see 9K. Its good news since I'm shipping up to Boston to start with them next week.
Click to expand...
New job??
 
Kritchlow said:
I agree about the lines, but I don't have the solution to that problem.

I do not believe 135 guys should have access to KCM. Part of the KCM mentality, as posted earlier by (can't remembr), is that it makes zero difference what the crew flying the airplane has in their luggage. If they want to do damage, they can.

"As needed" should be the standard. That includes me, as we can use KCM even for personal use.

Just saying.. all this info is readily available on the KCM sites. I'm not disclosing any info.
Click to expand...
Why should "as needed" be the standard? If people are vetted, whether they are going to work or not should not make a difference. And even if you have decided that traveling for work should be the standard, many 135 pilots travel for work too.
 
JGoodish said:
The problem with criminal background checks is that everyone is "clean" until they're not, which is why I have a pet peeve with schools, day cares, church nurseries, and just about everyone else under the sun requiring background checks, especially to work around children. My issue isn't so much with the requirement for background checks as it is with the assumption of many organizations that a "clean" check means there's no risk. The checks are done, but yet the thieves and pedophiles still seem to slip through.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that background checks are not thorough enough? Even if they were more thorough, you can't predict anyone's future behavior with certainty.
 
Everskyward said:
Why should "as needed" be the standard? If people are vetted, whether they are going to work or not should not make a difference. And even if you have decided that traveling for work should be the standard, many 135 pilots travel for work too.
Click to expand...
I chose that as the standard because it would, for the most part, limit KCM to the people who already have control of the airplane.
 
Kritchlow said:
I chose that as the standard because it would, for the most part, limit KCM to the people who already have control of the airplane.
Click to expand...
Then you are limiting it to airline pilots who have an immediate assignment, or perhaps a jumpseater. The ones commuting in the back do not have control of the airplane.

What makes you think that the pilots in the front are any more trustworthy than the others? Or are you saying that it doesn't really matter if they are trustworthy or not because the ones who have control will do what they will do, regardless?
 
Everskyward said:
Then you are limiting it to airline pilots who have an immediate assignment, or perhaps a jumpseater. The ones commuting in the back do not have control of the airplane.
Click to expand...
Right... I've got no problem with that.

What makes you think that the pilots in the front are any more trustworthy than the others? Or are you saying that it doesn't really matter if they are trustworthy or not because the ones who have control will do what they will do, regardless?
Click to expand...
Yes, the latter part of your statement is exactly my point.
 
Kritchlow said:
Congratulations!! Seems like a real fun company to work for.

In addition, don't they have some sort of flow deal with Jet Blue?
Click to expand...
Thanks. I'm ready to work for a company known for its culture.

The flow is a long process beginning at an approved aviation school which turns into an internship after enough cfi time at your school. Then the JBU flow comes into play. That doesn't apply to me. :(
 
KCM

Because no part 121 crew member has EVER flown a plane into a mountain.
(or other stuff with people on board)

Being an anarchist, I reject all your rules. Particularly those that serve absolutely NO useful purpose.
Like KCM
and others that are outside the scope of this discussion.
Times being what they are, every part 121 crew member should have to take a full psych evaluation before every single flight. JMHO

Personally, when I fly into an airport in my super cool Light Sport aircraft, and I walk through the terminal in my super cool uniform, I will bet a bundle of your money (whoever makes the most) that I get more perks and more privileges than anyone on the board. :D
 
Last edited:
NJP_MAN said:
Thanks. I'm ready to work for a company known for its culture. (
Click to expand...

Just remember that a colony of yeast is called a culture. Now a culture can produce fine beer and wine. It can also produce Falstaff, PBR, and MD 20/20...:D
 
Shepherd said:
KCM

Because no part 121 crew member has EVER flown a plane into a mountain.
(or other stuff with people on board)
Click to expand...

And your point is??

Being an anarchist, I reject all your rules. Particularly those that serve absolutely NO useful purpose.
Like KCM
and others that are outside the scope of this discussion.
Click to expand...
Gotcha... You are certainly entitle to your own opinion. That's why they make vanilla and chocolate. :)

Personally, when I fly into an airport in my super cool Light Sport aircraft, and I walk through the terminal in my super cool uniform, I will bet a bundle of your money (whoever makes the most) that I get more perks and more privileges than anyone on the board. :D
Click to expand...
You got me on this one. I have no idea what you are saying.
 
Clark1961 said:
Just remember that a colony of yeast is called a culture. Now a culture can produce fine beer and wine. It can also produce Falstaff, PBR, and MD 20/20...:D
Click to expand...

Lol!!! Falstaff!!!
Haven't heard that one in many years!!
 
Kritchlow said:
And your point is??


Gotcha... You are certainly entitle to your own opinion. That's why they make vanilla and chocolate. :)


You got me on this one. I have no idea what you are saying.
Click to expand...

When they see the plane I fly they say: "You flew in here..... in THAT?"
Thinking I must be the bravest aviator that ever lived.

I'm a pastor (Lutheran). If I'm in "uniform" no one ever hassles me. Even the part 121 guys tip their hats and smile.
For the last few years I have been flying into a bunch of different airports and reach out to air crews and airport workers as part of my regular mission outreach each week.

When I was in my Army uniform, I even got saluted. (Chaplain, HQ Battalion)
 
Shepherd said:
When they see the plane I fly they say: "You flew in here..... in THAT?"
Thinking I must be the bravest aviator that ever lived.

I'm a pastor (Lutheran). If I'm in "uniform" no one ever hassles me. Even the part 121 guys tip their hats and smile.
For the last few years I have been flying into a bunch of different airports and reach out to air crews and airport workers as part of my regular mission outreach each week.

When I was in my Army uniform, I even got saluted. (Chaplain, HQ Battalion)
Click to expand...
Indeed that explains it! :)

That said, it may be hard to see your plane from the pax terminal..
 
Kritchlow said:
Possibly, but IIRC that has been extensively debated in a different thread.
KCM is a whole different animal in my opinion.

YMMV about security...
Click to expand...
No, it's not a different animal. It serves the same purpose as pre check, clear, letting old people keep their shoes on, etc. The "security" at airports serves no real purpose other than making money for government contractors and increasing the size and scope of fiefdoms.

The airlines regret that their Gollum, created so that people would feel safe flying after 9/11 had become a primary reason that people hate flying and avoid it whenever possible. Of course, since the people who actually know know that the theater doesn't increase security, they will accept any excuse to except people from the-completely unnecessary to begin with-screening.

These exemptions serve several purposes as well, none of which have anything to do with security. They make people feel special (see, this thread) and make special people feel that their needs are being met. They relive congestion at screening points top some extent. And they further increase fiefdoms because you now need to staff the regular line, the pre check line, the kcm line, etc. (This is the most amazing part. Only the government could figure out how to increase the size of a program by exempting people from it.)

The beauty of all this is that it's accomplished without admitting that the entire thing was unnecessary to begin with!
 
Lindberg said:
No, it's not a different animal. It serves the same purpose as pre check, clear, letting old people keep their shoes on, etc. The "security" at airports serves no real purpose other than making money for government contractors and increasing the size and scope of fiefdoms.

The airlines regret that their Gollum, created so that people would feel safe flying after 9/11 had become a primary reason that people hate flying and avoid it whenever possible. Of course, since the people who actually know know that the theater doesn't increase security, they will accept any excuse to except people from the-completely unnecessary to begin with-screening.

These exemptions serve several purposes as well, none of which have anything to do with security. They make people feel special (see, this thread) and make special people feel that their needs are being met. They relive congestion at screening points top some extent. And they further increase fiefdoms because you now need to staff the regular line, the pre check line, the kcm line, etc. (This is the most amazing part. Only the government could figure out how to increase the size of a program by exempting people from it.)

The beauty of all this is that it's accomplished without admitting that the entire thing was unnecessary to begin with!
Click to expand...
A couple quick points, as I'm at dinner.

1) if people are avoiding flying, you can't prove it by load factor.
2) you do know the airline or individual pays for KCM, right?
3) put two airplanes side by side. One is screened, one is not. I bet I know which will be full. I also bet I know which the bad guys will go for.
 
I got through security with a speed loader full of .44mag that I had left in my backpack, found it once I got to my destination and started unpacking.

Thank sweet baby Jesus though they frisked that old lady and took her water bottle away.
 
DavidWhite said:
I got through security with a speed loader full of .44mag that I had left in my backpack, found it once I got to my destination and started unpacking.

Thank sweet baby Jesus though they frisked that old lady and took her water bottle away.
Click to expand...
Well, clearly they know that anyone who uses a speed loader is no threat at all... ;)

I got through once with my nail clippers in my bag AND I didn't file a flight plan! :yikes: Frankly, I'm shocked we didn't vaporize the entire central US with those two combined atrocities...
 
Kritchlow said:
3) put two airplanes side by side. One is screened, one is not. I bet I know which will be full. I also bet I know which the bad guys will go for.
Click to expand...
I'd take both those bets. You really think people would stop flying if we went back to 1999-style screening (which would be equivalent to giving everyone pre check)? More and more they're "randomly" selecting folks for the pre check line anyway.

How many attacks has the "enhanced" airport screening prevented?
 
My bet is that, everything else being equal, the price of the ticket would have more influence than the absence or presence of screening.
 
Lindberg said:
I'd take both those bets. You really think people would stop flying if we went back to 1999-style screening (which would be equivalent to giving everyone pre check)? More and more they're "randomly" selecting folks for the pre check line anyway.
Click to expand...
I said no screening, not pre check style screening.

How many attacks has the "enhanced" airport screening prevented?
Click to expand...
it would be impossible to know.
 
Kritchlow said:
I said no screening, not pre check style screening.
Click to expand...
You might not remember, but "pre check style screening" is just what we called "airport security" before TSA existed. The TSA backhanded crotch swipe and uncalibrated CT scan are just what gives politicians warm fuzzies. And make no mistake, like most of the theatrics that pass for security, the pre check application is comical. I've passed numerous government background checks. But the pre check app asks for no information the fed.gov doesn't already have. My addresses for the last five years? My employer? My DL number? Passport expiration date? How does putting any of that on a computerized app make air travel safer?

it would be impossible to know.
Click to expand...
There'd be a press release every time. In fact, the TSA catalogs all the really bad **** it seizes at checkpoints and posts on its Instagram feed. And yet not one bit of that contraband was destined to be used in an act of air piracy. You think if they took down an actual terrorist at the airport they'd keep it quiet? It'd be headline news and all over the TSA facebook page, complete with Youtube video. Plus there'd be criminal prosecutions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top