photofly wrote: ↑
Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:21 am
As far as a RAIC goes, there are very few offenses that make the offender a risk to aviation security.
That’s a bold statement.
What’s your evidence or expertise to support it?
I think there will always be times when a recent criminal record may be a valid reason for denying employment. For instance, getting into a police force, access to narcotics, need to cross borders, and a few other things.
... but not access to secure areas of airports?
It's not a bold statement.
Aviation security as the public understands it means securing aircraft from any reasonable, forseeable possibility than someone will act with the intent to endanger an aircraft and its passengers. It implies an assessment by rational fair minded people balancing the societal concerns that may conflict, i.e. genuine security vs. the right to employment. It is not about fantasy fears that may seem to be outside the window to a Trump supporter.
Canada has codified the acts that endanger the security of an aircraft in section 77 of the Criminal Code. These are the only offences that Canada's Parliament has defined in respect of security of an aircraft:
Endangering safety of aircraft or airport
77 Every one who
(a) on board an aircraft in flight, commits an act of violence against a person that is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft,
(b) using a weapon, commits an act of violence against a person at an airport serving international civil aviation that causes or is likely to cause serious injury or death and that endangers or is likely to endanger safety at the airport,
(c) causes damage to an aircraft in service that renders the aircraft incapable of flight or that is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft in flight,
(d) places or causes to be placed on board an aircraft in service anything that is likely to cause damage to the aircraft, that will render it incapable of flight or that is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft in flight,
(e) causes damage to or interferes with the operation of any air navigation facility where the damage or interference is likely to endanger the safety of an aircraft in flight,
(f) using a weapon, substance or device, destroys or causes serious damage to the facilities of an airport serving international civil aviation or to any aircraft not in service located there, or causes disruption of services of the airport, that endangers or is likely to endanger safety at the airport, or
(g) endangers the safety of an aircraft in flight by communicating to any other person any information that the person knows to be false,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.
All I really know about this pass denial thing is what I know from reading news reports in the papers and the discussion on here. but I can say that any reasonable person would think that an effective denial of employment should be bsed on clear evidence that links a RAIC applicant to some behaviour that warns of a real possibility of one of these above offences being committed through access to a secure area.
Yes, I didn't specifically state "...access to secure areas of an airport" because that is what this thread is about.
It is worth saying that what we are talking about here is airline employees working in the terminal and on the ramp, including pilots. My comments relate to the civil liberties issues that arise from the way some of those people have been treated in the pass approval process.
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.