>> Calloway's plan was unsuccessful. The crew was able to fight back despite severe wounds, subdue him, and safely land the aircraft. <<
Apparently you beat the crap out of him.
>>> The crew was left with permanent, disabling injuries and have not flown professionally since.
"Prior to the departure of this flight on April 7, 1994, Mr. Calloway presented himself at the plane in full flight gear and with carry-on items. Although he was not a member of the flight crew, he entered the cockpit and began adjusting instruments and controls as if he were."
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/116/116.F3d.1129.95...
Pilots are - for the most part - the most stable people that I have ever met and in general will not get up to stuff like this nearly as often as 'regular' folks do.
If they did there would be suicide induced plane crashes every other day with the number of pilots in active service.
Incidents will always happen, the question is if you think that it is worth draconian safety measures to get the incident level down an unmeasurable fraction.
Again, all it would take for a major accident is for one guy to lift his foot for 2 seconds while taxiing.
You could not stop that if you wanted to.
And stop advocating for lifting security requirements off pilots with ridiculous arguments like "pilots are - for the most part - the most stable people that I have ever met" and "he already has full control of the plane, so heck, he should be allowed to bring whatever the fuck he wants onboard anyway".
Scanning people shoes is useless. Full body scanners are useless. As the pilot said, what will they do when someone try to blow up a plane with dynamite in his rectum? Rectal check for everyone? This is absurd, expensive and serves only one purpose : covering TSA officials' asses.
See for instance some of these: http://www.schneier.com/essays-airline.html
Not once did he advocate not screening pilots, did he?
http://www.schneier.com/essay-304.html http://www.schneier.com/essay-245.html http://www.schneier.com/essay-299.html
Security in airports is already much too high, too annoying and too costly. There must be a point when it stops getting tighter and tighter. It won't catch the next terrorist anyway. We need a better use of resources and people (better than taking away mineral water bottles, and full-body scanning everyone and his dog).
But I'm still not seeing him advocating not screening the crew. And how could he advocate something like that.
It would be like him saying "use strong encryption to protect your information, but make sure that passwords are written on post-its so it won't get lost".
If pilots didn't have to go through security, we'd presumably see a lot more of this.
Security checks on the pilots are not attempting to prevent pilots from causing harm-- they are attempting to close a loophole which would allow people impersonating pilots to do harm.
It's going to help limit the damage if somebody impersonates him, by making sure they don't have a bomb/gun/what-have-you.
You do get this, don't you?
Wouldn't fingerprints be enough to avoid identity theft?
I've heard this method was used in Asia by some car thieves.
However, security officers would block anyone trying to pass past security checks using chopped off fingers or fake ones.
From the Wikipedia article you linked to (twice) but apparently did not care to read:
"The scheduled three-man flight crew consisted of 49-year-old Captain David Sanders, 42-year-old First Officer James Tucker, and 39-year-old Flight Engineer Andrew Peterson."
"About twenty minutes after takeoff, as the flight crew carried on a casual conversation, Calloway entered the flight deck and commenced his attack."
This incident is therefore entirely irrelevant to the conversation.
- - -
It's interesting, though, to find (articulate) American people who actually approve of the TSA methods, because I thought it was the TSA vs. the rest of the public (cf. "Ask the Pilot" Salon column for instance).
It's interesting, but disheartening, because it means the TSA and its gropers and thugs are really here to stay.
That's where I stopped reading your comment.
Yes, that's the meaning of the word deadheading. Before you complain someone didn't read an article, you might want to make sure that you understand what they did say.
However, that makes the reference to this incident even more incomprehensible. Who said anything about off-duty pilots?
Being a qualified pilot (or dressed as one) is not the point; the point, as has been stated many times now in this discussion, is that:
1. whoever is flying the plane today does not need to go through security, because they'll end up in the cockpit anyway
2. whatever piece of ID is enough to get someone at the commands of a commercial airliner today should also be enough to get past ordinary security procedures designed for passengers