who stole the plane

[fluffyflops 1,858]

22 minutes ago, ErichB said:

Well that's a risk waiting to realise.

I've found it's only banking, working with children and the elderly and the vunrable you need an enhanced crb. At the airport it's basic. 

You do know theres 3000 on the jihadi watch list that they are monitoring right now in the UK dont you??  and also 3000 in total  that have come back from fighting in Syria and Iraq that  are now living in Europe in various countrys that are all free to come to the UK.  Most of both those 3000s both here in UK and in Europe would pass the basic CRB but fail the enhanced.    Because they not been charged and got prosecuted for any crime here in the UK.  Theres a ton of intelligence on them but no actual criminal record. Thats why they can get a job at an airport but not in a school, hospital or for PWC

Its staggering to see how blissfully unaware people are of whats happening in the world.

Edited August 15, 2018 by tooting

[ErichB 3,643]

28 minutes ago, tooting said:

  Because they not been charged and got prosecuted for any crime here in the UK.  Theres a ton of intelligence on them but no actual criminal record. Thats why they can get a job at an airport but not in a school, hospital or for PWC

.

I am aware. 

It's so ironic that the industry most blighted by actual and potential risk of terrorism,  in an environment posing the most risk to a much greater number of people,  has the weakest screening.  That's the UK these days.

[Chock 17,769]

Actually, that's not entirely true. Whilst it's true that on the face of it you only have to have a CRB and a work history check to get an airside pass. In fact you also have to do a GSAT exam and the airport pass office has to issue the pass after checking your submissions out. They don't make public what they do when performing that process, and the Government's security services don't make public the checks they do on anyone who submits a GSAT test, but I do know they do check things out and delve a little deeper than you are told, and this should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it for a second: The GSAT test is for the most part, common sense, there are one or two slightly tricky questions on it, but nothing you can't pass easily if you watch the training videos which precede the test, so why make it compulsory? Well, because you have to register and verify numerous personal details to do that test, and that puts you in a lot of systems where you can be checked out, for example, they can then track your banking details, which means they can check your location from where you use your bank cards, etc, etc. This can be cross referenced with other people's moves and so on.

Edited August 15, 2018 by Chock

[fluffyflops 1,858]

Gsat teaches you about security, the pass office collates the data from the CRB and the references from the last 5 years. Unless I'm mistaken. 

There's 76000 people working at Heathrow can you imagine what would happen if they processed that amount of people with enhanced crbs??? 

The local Hounslow Iman would have a heart attack 

Edited August 15, 2018 by tooting

[Chock 17,769]

15 minutes ago, tooting said:

Gsat teaches you about security, the pass office collates the data from the CRB and the references from the last 5 years. Unless I'm mistaken

Yes it does, but since you have to pay for it yourself, and you have to verify your ID through several systems and with personal stuff such as a bank account number, passport number, driving licence number etc, this is a very easy way for the security services to flag up anyone who is thinking of working in that environment, and you don't need to be Hercule Poirot to work out that this is an obvious way to alert the security services to an application to work airside, since the test is not exactly rocket science, which indicates it serves a less apparent purpose to anyone who thinks about that for more than a microsecond. Not everything is as it seems with security checks and related matters. For example, you might have heard the tannoy announcement on the Tube in London 'Will Inspector Sands call 100'. There is no Inspector Sands, it's a coded message which means there's a fire on the tube system somewhere; it's done that way so people don't panic all over the place. There's all kinds of stuff like that which goes on that most people are not intended to know about, you probably have some stuff like that at your company, I know we do.

Edited August 15, 2018 by Chock

[fluffyflops 1,858]

28 minutes ago, Chock said:

Yes it does, but since you have to pay for it yourself, and you have to verify your ID through several systems and with personal stuff such as a bank account number, passport number, driving licence number etc. This is a very easy way for the security services to flag up anyone who is thinking of working in that environment, and you don't need to be Hercule Poirot to work out that this is an obvious way to alert the security services to an application to work airside, since the test is not exactly rocket science, which indicates it serves a less apparent purpose to anyone who thinks about that for more than a microsecond.

Forgive my cynisim chock. If you think all the 76000 staff as well of the 100s of thousands of flight crew that pass through have been vetted properly by mi5, mi6 and the cops you must be deluded. I think the security services do an amazing job with the limited manning and budget resources they have available, but I go with the idea that nearly all of my work collegues go with and that if someone is going to do something nasty they will. Living in London in current  climate is testimony to that. If I had kids there's no way I'd bring them up in this capital. No way 

My hunch is when someone does do something nasty at Heathrow if Gatwick, and they will, they won't be from Tunbridge Wells, neither will they be called John nor will it be a pilot, cabin crew or pushback driver. 

It will be a cleaner or caterer that arrived here recently.  That's my hunch. The threat level is currently at severe for a reason 

Edited August 15, 2018 by tooting

[Chock 17,769]

4 minutes ago, tooting said:

Forgive my cynisim chock. If you think all the 76000 staff as well of the 100s of thousands of flight crew that pass through have been vetted properly by mi5, mi6 and the cops you must be deluded. I think the security services do an amazing job with the limited manning and budget resources they have available, but I go with the idea that nearly all of my work collegues go with and that if someone is going to do something nasty they will. Living in London in current  climate is testimony to that. 

Let me tell you a story which won't be giving too much away, but might surprise you with regard to security in the UK and its surveillance capabilities (and this was thirty years ago when technology was much less capable than it is now). Back in 1990, the father of a girl I went out with told me this about an incident which happened to him, and he was not given to making stuff up, so I've no reason to doubt the truth of it and the scary implications it has for just exactly who may be watching us and what sort of technology they might have to assist in that process...

Between 1959 and 1963, there were, as you probably know, a series of marches to Aldermaston, protesting against the UK's development of nuclear weapons, these being centered around the fledgling CND movement, an organisation which came under the scrutiny of the security services since it was thought - not without some good reason - to be something of a left wing front with less benevolent reasons than many of CND's membership may have been aware.

So back in the early 60's, this guy who was the father of my then-girlfriend, not being much in favour of nuclear weaponry, went on one of those marches, just one of them. Shortly after that, he dropped his support for CND because they had extended their remit to protesting about nuclear power stations as well, which he had no problem with, and that, so he thought was the end of the matter for him. Except that he was in Manchester city centre thirty years later, in 1990, and there happened to be a CND protest going on in Piccadilly Gardens in the centre of the City, which he was walking through, having done some shopping. A man in plain clothes stopped him when he got near to where the protesters were and said, bold as brass: 'Afternoon Mr Robinson, not marching today?'

[Jim Young 2,356]

22 hours ago, kdfw__ said:

Would be interesting to see how wsj frames this story. 

 

Probably more balanced than the 40yr old 4chan guy here. 

Not very good.  They say he said the ride was more than he experienced on "personal flight simulators he called video games" before dying in the crash...  I do not recall anyone here mentioning his background with flight simulators - https://www.wsj.com/articles/horizon-employee-conveyed-flying-knowledge-to-air-traffic-controllers-1534049609

This was published on Aug 12th and it is Aug 15th as I write this post.

[honanhal 1,420]

That’s not an article by Sarah Needleman, Jim. Her article either hasn’t yet been, or won’t be, published.

James

[Ted Striker 338]

1 hour ago, Jim Young said:

on "personal flight simulators he called video games"

I heard Rich mention video games in the ATC recordings but not flight simulators. I didn't subscribe to the Wall Street Journal to read the entire article but from the first lead-on paragraph that is viewable it looks like the WSJ is making the assumption that "video games" means "flight simulator". Hopefully Sarah will correct this but I'm not holding my breath.

Ted

[Guest]

9 hours ago, SimSlim said:

I like the idea but what about the takeoff roll, how do you prevent it from being accidentally activated then?

Link to aircraft speed via it's own internal GPS and/or aircraft's speed indicators ... could vary by aircraft > 20, 30, 60, 80 GS then trigger will not work.  It would have a much lower probability of "accidental" triggering than say Tower giving clearance to two aircraft on the same runway or taxiway incursion or other human errors.

Cheers, Rob.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

One thing I learned about simming was it could only help me so far when I finally took lessons for real, especially with landings.  Takeoffs were easy, stalls were easy, in flight was easy and so was traffic spotting.  But ATC was too hard for me, I speak with a slow Chicago accent and my CFI would coax me to hurry up, but I can only speak so fast.  Great for my job as a teacher but not so great with ATC.  And landings in the choppy Phoenix air were hard, although I did do a few landings in smoother air back east and found those easier, much easier.  Trike landings were much easier for me because we flew out of uncontrolled airfields, except for one in New Mexico.  Trikes are easier to fly because the human is the servo, hydraulics, everything lol.  The only worry flying the trike is the integrity of the "******* Bolt", so named because if it fails, "*******" would probably be the first...and last thing to cross your lips.  But they never fail.

I was interviewed by the Wall Street Journal reporter, Sarah yesterday although I interviewed with her after she filed her story, she wanted my feedback in case there is a follow up.  Out of journalistic integrity I won't detail what was asked other than she was a consummate professional, kind, slow with her questions, and she always checked for understanding and maintained not only my self esteem but that of our hobby.

There will be discussion for years on this incident, changes to airline security, and questions about simulators and what they can teach.  I do not have systems intensive aircraft, my Xplane11 Aerobask Eclipse is probably as intense as it gets, followed by the Carenado C550.  I prefer seat of the pants flying, VFR flight, some night flights, and always always practicing landings under some weather and windy conditions because that is what mimics my real life lessons so well.  I wish I had rudder pedals rather than a twist grip controller so I can practice slips, but I can pull off a good slip with the twist grip just the same.

I think this discussion, this thread, has went very well, lots of good comments from all.

John

[scott967 62]

Meanwhile, a corporate pilot in New Mexico took off in the company plane and flew it into his house (per news reports).

 

scott s.

.

 

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, scott967 said:

Meanwhile, a corporate pilot in New Mexico took off in the company plane and flew it into his house (per news reports).

 

scott s.

.

 

He didn't half do it neatly though - wife and son both got out of the house - google the pictures - it's like he parked it outside the garage (in a mess);

"Hi honey, I'm home."

He died.

It wasn't his plane to muck around with either, like our Rich that we've been discussing.

Edited August 15, 2018 by Guest

[n4gix 4,947]

I've tried extensive google searching and have found nothing on this reported incident.