Qantas pilot suspended after refusing shoe search in Philippines

[Kiwi Flyer]

It may be a rare situation to have a rogue tech crew member, but statistically so are bomb carrying passengers yet we expect all passengers to be screened.

It isnt the rareness that is the issue. The point is that pilots don't need a shoe bomb to bring down a plane.

 

[NYCguy]

It isnt the rareness that is the issue. The point is that pilots don't need a shoe bomb to bring down a plane.

The point is that these two acted like petulant teenagers, making a big scene by getting all indignant about a minor issue. It may be a legislative requirement in the Philippines for ALL boarding an aircraft to undergo the same checks, I don't know. What I do know is that rather than acting like spoiled brats and having big sooky tantrums and insisting how special and precious they are, the pilots should have just smiled sweetly and complied with what was a reasonable request.

 

[Dave Noble]

The point is that these two acted like petulant teenagers, making a big scene by getting all indignant about a minor issue. It may be a legislative requirement in the Philippines for ALL boarding an aircraft to undergo the same checks, I don't know. What I do know is that rather than acting like spoiled brats and having big sooky tantrums and insisting how special and precious they are, the pilots should have just smiled sweetly and complied with what was a reasonable request.

It does , to me, depend on whether there is a legal requirement in that country to remove shoes, if not, then the pilots ( as would anyone esle ) were quite reasonable in their refusal to do so

I have had security people at ORD try and tell me to remove shoes when going through a security point, however I refused due to their not having the authority to require it. When I refused and explained why, the person backed down

If the regulations there do require it ( and there is not an exception for crew ) , then the pilots were (imo) wrong to refuse

Dave

 

[Gazza]

Just some background information that is relevant

I travel through Manila probably 5-6 times a year. Security there is a joke. I have seen workmen leave ramset nail guns unattended while doing maintenance work in public areas.

I don’t understand why society is so focused on terrorism as THE risk to their safety when traveling. I mean how many people here actually know someone killed by a terrorist group?

The reality is that it will be the mundane (the tired taxi driver in Shanghai who bribed an underpaid civil servant for a driver’s license) that is more likely to be the cause of your untimely departure from this planet.

Incidentally when it comes to aircraft related fatalities I would suspect that deaths as a result of terrorism rates at 4th (after poor maintenance, pilot error and weather). So you have more to worry about if Qantas keeps driving down the cost of its maintenance than by two pilots saying “mate these are yesterdays socks, ill keep my shoes on thanks".

Gazza

 

[thadocta]

An excellent POV on this matter can be found at Sydney Airport Message Board :: View topic - Security tiff delays Qantas flight - Manila - you may need to go to page two, depending on your settings). The relevant post is by Mike Scott, and is the 17th post in the thread. (That software won't let you link directly to a particular post).

Dave

 

[Dave Noble]

This should go straight to the post by Mike Scott referenced by Thadocta Sydney Airport Message Board :: View topic - Security tiff delays Qantas flight - Manila

(A bit of a work round to the linking to a post on that software by telling it to start at postrequired - 1)

Dave

 

[NM]

It does , to me, depend on whether there is a legal requirement in that country to remove shoes, if not, then the pilots ( as would anyone esle ) were quite reasonable in their refusal to do so

It may not be a legal requirement to remove shoes for screening (I don't know the laws in Manila). However, it may be a legal requirement to follow the directive of a security screener. Such a directive may not be binding in the LOTFAP, but that does not mean it is the case in all countries.

 

[Dave Noble]

It may not be a legal requirement to remove shoes for screening (I don't know the laws in Manila). However, it may be a legal requirement to follow the directive of a security screener. Such a directive may not be binding in the LOTFAP, but that does not mean it is the case in all countries.

I did say *if* it wasnt a legal requirement ( as per USA ). If the security screener did not have the authority to require the removal of shoes , then the pilot was quite within his rights to refuse and should not be penalised

Dave

 

[oz_mark]

I did say *if* it wasnt a legal requirement ( as per USA ). If the security screener did not have the authority to require the removal of shoes , then the pilot was quite within his rights to refuse and should not be penalised

Regardless of whether or not they were required to remove their shoes, is it reasonable that they delay a flight 22 minutes over the issue?

 

[Dave Noble]

Regardless of whether or not they were required to remove their shoes, is it reasonable that they delay a flight 22 minutes over the issue?

Well, if the person did not have the authority to require the shoes to be removed, then the delay is directly attributable to the person trying to impose it and not to the person refusing to be forced into removing the shoes

Dave

 

[Yada Yada]

Regardless of whether or not the security officer had the right to request they remove their shoes, IMO it was a bit petulant for the pilots not to do so. It would seems that QF management are not happy about it either and have taken it quite seriously.

 

[JohnK]

Regardless of whether or not they were required to remove their shoes, is it reasonable that they delay a flight 22 minutes over the issue?

Regardless of whether or not the security officer had the right to request they remove their shoes, IMO it was a bit petulant for the pilots not to do so. It would seems that QF management are not happy about it either and have taken it quite seriously.

Totally agree! All they were asked to do was remove their shoes.

 

[NM]

Regardless of whether or not the security officer had the right to request they remove their shoes, IMO it was a bit petulant for the pilots not to do so.

Perhaps the pilots thought it would be petulant for the security screener if they did remove their shoes :shock: . Perhaps they had forgotten to take a change of socks on their 10-day trip and knew the removal of their shoes at that point would also result in the removal of all people from the surrounding area .

Pilot: "My shoes are perfectly safe while they remain on my feet. But when removed from my feet they will become a terror weapon of mass destruction ."