Another drone in the Airport

[sar104]

It gets back to the specific facts including was I supposed to know everything about that mechanic before letting him near the vehicle and was I supposed to be watching and supervising what he was doing? Of course, the other thing that might make a difference is whether I knew there was the functional equivalent of 15,000lb fuel bomb in the car that could be detonated in downtown Seattle within 5 minutes of being driven away.

Let's keep it equivalent. He's a mechanic. He passed a background check. You hired him to work on your car. Are you really going to stand guard over him to make sure that he doesn't use your car as a weapon? And, if he did, are you still going to expect to be charged with some kind of crime?

Other than that, the law doesn't distinguish between using a car or an aircraft to commit mass murder, and aviation fuel won't detonate in a crash, although it will burn.

 

[lmel2005]

No, security matters related to airlines, are not equivalent to those related car repair companies.

I think it would be a waste of space to refer to each subject, from hiring personnel to entering an airplane cockpit, to prove this.

And in any court in the world, stealing a large passenger plane is not equivalent to car stealing.

 

[UAVNV]

all these semantics discussed, think critically.

anyways, I appreciate reports, but I prefer the follow up investigation. who was this pilot? surely the flight records will show the story.

looking forward to the follow up to this.

 

[sar104]

No, security matters related to airlines, are not equivalent to those related car repair companies.

I think it would be a waste of space to refer to each subject, from hiring personnel to entering an airplane cockpit, to prove this.c

And in any court in the world, stealing a large passenger plane is not equivalent to car stealing.

Unless stealing a car to use as a weapon is not a crime at all, your point is irrelevant to the analogy.

 

[lmel2005]

Unless stealing a car to use as a weapon is not a crime at all, your point is irrelevant to the analogy.

Yes I know. Irrelevant, out of topic, and a straw man argument.

 

[Chip]

No, security matters related to airlines, are not equivalent to those related car repair companies.

I think it would be a waste of space to refer to each subject, from hiring personnel to entering an airplane cockpit, to prove this.

And in any court in the world, stealing a large passenger plane is not equivalent to car stealing.

Yes. Exactly right. We are told that an airport is prime terrorist target and therefore extreme high security and vigilance is required at all times. No one has ever issued me similar warnings in regard to the Shell station where I get my oil changed.

 

[sar104]

Yes. Exactly right. We are told that an airport is prime terrorist target and therefore extreme high security and vigilance is required at all times. No one has ever issued me similar warnings in regard to the Shell station where I get my oil changed.

The fact that there is extra vigilance at airports, higher consequences etc., doesn't change the fact that in both cases there still needs to be a specific law broken before you can go around demanding retribution. Neither of you has pointed to which law you feel was broken by the airline when a trusted employee stole an aircraft, or which law you think might cover that case but not the hypothetical one where a mechanic steals your car and commits a crime.

 

[Chip]

...there still needs to be a specific law broken before you can go around demanding retribution...

What do you think was the specific law broken by guy who flew drone in downtown Seattle in 2015?

 

[sar104]

What do you think was the specific law broken by guy who flew drone in downtown Seattle in 2015?

It's not a matter of what I might think - he was charged with, and found guilty of, reckless endangerment.

 

[Chip]

It's not a matter of what I might think - he was charged with, and found guilty of, reckless endangerment.

Yes. Reckless endangerment. Wide open definition. Can fit all kinds of things including leaving keys in car or plane.

 

[sar104]

Yes. Reckless endangerment. Wide open definition. Can fit all kinds of things including leaving keys in car or plane.

No it isn't. Reckless endangerment is defined as the offense of recklessly engaging in conduct that creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury or death to another person. You think that if you leave your keys in your car then you are guilty of that? Remember that the offense is independent of whether such an outcome actually happens - the offense is simply creating the risk. And aircraft such as these are not key-controlled anyway.

But, if you do actually think that an airline granting its employees access to its aircraft constitutes reckless endangerment then you will just have to wait to see if the local prosecutor agrees. Don't hold your breath though. And by the way, if one of their pilots had done the same thing - stolen the aircraft and then deliberately crashed it - would you still think that was a case of reckless endangerment by the airline?

 

[Chip]

... if you do actually think that an airline granting its employees access to its aircraft constitutes reckless endangerment then you will just have to wait to see if the local prosecutor agrees. Don't hold your breath though...

That was my point all along. The double standard. The stolen aircraft was massive threat to tens of thousands of people but no one will be prosecuted or even docked a days pay.

 

[sar104]

That was my point all along. The double standard. The stolen aircraft was massive threat to tens of thousands of people but no one will be prosecuted or even docked a days pay.

This has been an interesting discussion, but I just cannot keep up with your non sequiturs, false equivalences, and complete disregard for facts. You completely ignore points that do not support your position and seem to be almost entirely focussed on how this feels, rather than the application of the legal process. The aircraft was a significant potential threat, and the person who caused that threat would have been prosecuted to the full extent that the law permits, except he's dead.

 

[787steve]

This last incident involved a baggage handler who stole an 80 seat plane owned by Alaska Airlines. Just climbed in, fired her up and flew away from Seatac airport. He chose to fly south and do some barrel rolls over Puget Sound before crashing and killing himself. Now, if he had chosen to fly north he would have been over downtown Seattle in 5 minutes. Could have crashed into the Columbia tower in downtown Seattle in 5 minutes. Oh well, no hobby drone involved so no big deal.

You don't think that was in the news?? Where do you get your news?

 

[Chip]

This has been an interesting discussion, but I just cannot keep up with your non sequiturs, false equivalences, and complete disregard for facts. You completely ignore points that do not support your position and seem to be almost entirely focussed on how this feels, rather than the application of the legal process...

You seem a little grumpy so lets forget the feelings and stick with what you know, math. The Airport Director said the chances of this incident occurring were 1 in 1 million. Do you agree or do you have some other number? Now, in your opinion, what are the chances of a hobby drone colliding with and taking down a commercial airliner?

 

[sar104]

You seem a little grumpy so lets forget the feelings and stick with what you know, math. The Airport Director said the chances of this incident occurring were 1 in 1 million. Do you agree or do you have some other number? Now, in your opinion, what are the chances of a hobby drone colliding with and taking down a commercial airliner?

You are mistaking exasperated for grumpy.

 

[Chip]

"According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), TSA officials have long acknowledged the potential threat from airport workers, but deemed the threat a 'known and accepted risk.'"

In June 2015, the DHS OIG released a report which found that 73 aviation workers who held sensitive jobs within U.S. airports were found to have possible ties to terrorism, which their background checks did not reveal. In addition to these 73 individuals, the investigation concluded that thousands of TSA employee records were incomplete and contained inaccurate information. Without a comprehensive background check for employees, TSA does not have the ability to vet those individuals who may harbor ill-will toward the U.S. or have connections to individuals who do.

AMERICAN AIRPORTS: THE THREAT FROM WITHIN
House Homeland Security Committee Majority Staff Report

 

[RayOZ]

 

[lmel2005]

"According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), TSA officials have long acknowledged the potential threat from airport workers, but deemed the threat a 'known and accepted risk.'"

In June 2015, the DHS OIG released a report which found that 73 aviation workers who held sensitive jobs within U.S. airports were found to have possible ties to terrorism, which their background checks did not reveal. In addition to these 73 individuals, the investigation concluded that thousands of TSA employee records were incomplete and contained inaccurate information. Without a comprehensive background check for employees, TSA does not have the ability to vet those individuals who may harbor ill-will toward the U.S. or have connections to individuals who do.

AMERICAN AIRPORTS: THE THREAT FROM WITHIN
House Homeland Security Committee Majority Staff Report

That is the main point in discussion, I think, and this is the point making things different.

Is hiring procedure the same, when I hire a mechanic for my car, and when an airline hires personnel? Of course not.

If the airline hires a psychologically unstable person, has any consequences? I don't know, but I doubt.

In our days, after so many people killed, by commercial airplanes, and after millions and millions spent for air traffic security, the fact that any employee working in baggage department, can easily enter the cockpit and takeoff from a fully working airport, has some consequences for anyone? I don't know, but I doubt.

If someone flying a drone, comes "near something", will have consequences? I don't doubt at all, he will.
In Greece for example, the fines for everyone who "flies" even a toy drone, are the same with those for big commercial aircraft. They heard that a drone is "aircraft " and they just copy-paste the law.

If you try to explain this in here, some will try to explain you the law again and again, and at the end, they'll say you're an idiot and you don't understand the laws.

 

[Chip]

(SAR) You seem a little grumpy so lets forget the feelings and stick with what you know, math. The Airport Director said the chances of this incident occurring were 1 in 1 million. Do you agree or do you have some other number? Now, in your opinion, what are the chances of a hobby drone colliding with and taking down a commercial airliner?