Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pilot fined for trespass at Changi Airport transit area

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Nick C View Post
    Actually, this is not the first and probably won't be the last.
    Yeah, there were a couple of similar cases (one of which made it to the papers) about 10 years ago when I had my own Changi airport pass.

    Comment


    • #17
      I'm more surprised at the length it took for this incident to brought before the courts...

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by SQflyergirl View Post
        Silly silly boy. Thing is I've got to trust him to take me from A to B safely in a
        Metal tube hurtling along at 900 km/h , when the first sight of a bit of skirt and all good judgment and discretion go out the door ? No thanks.

        Boys should not be at the wheel of these jets. Adult men and women with the requisite maturity should.
        LOL! That unfortunately is the hormone guys have in their blood stream. It makes us park our brains somewhere. Even a President of the USA have succumbed, even a 60+ yo IMF boss! SQflyerqirl, I think you may have hit on an idea to start an airline that only employs female pilots. But that may result in other problems: they can't park and they can't read maps.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by CarbonMan View Post
          , I think you may have hit on an idea to start an airline that only employs female pilots. But that may result in other problems: they can't park and they can't read maps.
          And they may get cranky once a month...... imagine its that time of the month and she is cranky and announces on the PA.... "listen up paxs,..... when the seat belts signs are lit, either you get belted up or I'll kick you off my plane!"
          .
          .
          This is a computer generated message, no signature required....

          Comment


          • #20
            when i was living in SIN, it is possible for anyone to technically obtain an airport pass to go into the restricted area. Obviously, a justification is needed such as ensuring your domestic helper actually boards her plane and so forth. Since the guy was employed by SQ, i'm pretty sure some justifiable reason could have been provided. No need to lie or resort to deceit.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by RHG View Post
              when i was living in SIN, it is possible for anyone to technically obtain an airport pass to go into the restricted area. Obviously, a justification is needed such as ensuring your domestic helper actually boards her plane and so forth. Since the guy was employed by SQ, i'm pretty sure some justifiable reason could have been provided. No need to lie or resort to deceit.
              When was that ? I don't think the rules could be that lax as anyone could come up with one reason or another to enter. As far as I'm aware, there must be some sort of official endorsement in the form of a documentation to get a visitor pass. And in most cases, you must give advance notice of up to a week prior to your visit in order to do screening of the individuals involved.

              Comment


              • #22
                Just linking to a related thread about my experience of this and also the incident with the Jay Chou fans:

                http://www.sqtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4505

                I think some above are being too harsh. We have an expensively trained pilot and a small act of dishonesty. For some jobs, even a small act of dishonesty like this will be relevant, e.g. a person who had difficulty being allowed to qualify as a lawyer because 5-10 years ago when he was a teenager, he stole a plastic traffic cone as a joke and was cautioned (a formal telling off - but not prosecution - which nevertheless results in a criminal record) by the police about it. However, for a pilot who's proved he's technically competent enough to fly a plane, personally I don't think it matters.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by boing View Post
                  When was that ? I don't think the rules could be that lax as anyone could come up with one reason or another to enter.
                  that was at least 6 years ago and its quite common due to the 5k bond required for employers who employ domestic helpers. Since our esteemed SQflyergirl mentioned maturity, i'm sure if you are old enough you would recall that one of the requirements is that employers must ensure that the helpers do not abscond, ie not board their flights.

                  In the bigger picture, i'm not sure what the big drama is about as its quite common worldwide for travellers to request gate pass and so forth either to enter lounges or to say bye bye to their kids, aged parents etc... perhaps you could claify what you mean by official, governmental or some corporate permission? Airline and airport employees go in and out all the time. It wasn't done will ill menace or bad intention.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by CarbonMan View Post
                    SQflyerqirl, I think you may have hit on an idea to start an airline that only employs female pilots. But that may result in other problems: they can't park and they can't read maps.
                    SQfg, you can employ me. I looked at the BA pilot training scheme recently, and I did not think I would pass the spatial test. Then I thought about how I always drive my car into stationary objects when parking, and thought the job is not suitable for me. But I think it would be such fun clipping away the wings of any EK planes in my vicinity when taxiing.

                    Originally posted by 9V-JKL View Post
                    +1. With a global shortage of pilots, he should find work elsewhere quite easily if SQ don't want him
                    EK would take him.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by RHG View Post
                      It wasn't done will ill menace or bad intention.
                      What about the fact he arrived in his uniform passed through immigration and then changed out of it - that's not "bad intention"?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by RHG View Post
                        that was at least 6 years ago and its quite common due to the 5k bond required for employers who employ domestic helpers. Since our esteemed SQflyergirl mentioned maturity, i'm sure if you are old enough you would recall that one of the requirements is that employers must ensure that the helpers do not abscond, ie not board their flights.

                        In the bigger picture, i'm not sure what the big drama is about as its quite common worldwide for travellers to request gate pass and so forth either to enter lounges or to say bye bye to their kids, aged parents etc... perhaps you could claify what you mean by official, governmental or some corporate permission? Airline and airport employees go in and out all the time. It wasn't done will ill menace or bad intention.
                        I'm well aware of the bond requirements for FDWs as I've one as well. But it still falls short of the visitor's pass requirements of being used only for official or business purpose only. Unless I'm missing something here, I've never heard a visitor pass being given out for the purpose of escorting someone out. I've seen many a times, unaccompanied minors who are escorted by ground staff to the arrival hall to their parents or vice versa. I'm sure their parents will have taken a visitor pass if they were allowed.

                        It'll make a mockery of the protected place if any one can get entry to the transit place simply by saying they need to say bye bye to their loved ones. The term " protected place" will be a joke if anyone can get entry giving such reasons That's exactly what the pilot got into trouble for. It's just be an open invitation to terrorists and trouble makers to wreak havoc at Changi. There will be a big drama indeed if such undesirable characters were allowed freely to roam around these areas with little resistance.

                        And what I meant by official endorsement is that one must be sponsored by a tenant in Changi airport before a airport pass can be issued. Which means you must have official reasons to enter the airport. Hope this link helps.
                        http://www.cag.sg/cag/html/our-services/security/airport-pass-application-e-services/faqs.html


                        And as Gunnar Smithsen pointed out, the fact that he entered with his uniform and then changed into civilian clearly shows that he is aware of the system and had intentions to deceive it.
                        Last edited by boing; 12 September 2011, 08:09 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by boing View Post
                          When was that ? I don't think the rules could be that lax as anyone could come up with one reason or another to enter. As far as I'm aware, there must be some sort of official endorsement in the form of a documentation to get a visitor pass. And in most cases, you must give advance notice of up to a week prior to your visit in order to do screening of the individuals involved.
                          Yes you are right. It takes sometime to get approval for access to these areas with valid documentation.
                          Guess the best way to escort someone out is to buy another ticket !

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by boing View Post
                            I'm well aware of the bond requirements for FDWs as I've one as well. But it still falls short of the visitor's pass requirements of being used only for official or business purpose only. Unless I'm missing something here, I've never heard a visitor pass being given out for the purpose of escorting someone out.
                            ok. but as i mentioned, that was a few years ago. ie, you produce that paper from the ministry with your IC to the airport office. The airport office for such matters was in the basement and obviously only 1 visitor pass was issued for escort purposes. If that is no longer the case, then you are right but it doesn't mean that my view is incorrect or in error. The link you placed is also for long term airport passes,not visitor passes.

                            [QUOTE=boing;153254]
                            It'll make a mockery of the protected place if any one can get entry to the transit place simply by saying they need to say bye bye to their loved ones. The term " protected place" will be a joke if anyone can get entry giving such reasons That's exactly what the pilot got into trouble for. It's just be an open invitation to terrorists and trouble makers to wreak havoc at Changi. There will be a big drama indeed if such undesirable characters were allowed freely to roam around these areas with little resistance.[/URL]

                            I have never heard of any incidents similar or even any minor events that suggest such possibility at changi airport. While no one can ever guarantee security to be 100%, it would be an exaggeration to say someone who is unarmed, intended to simply go say farewell to his loved ones is a terrorist.

                            The pilot didn't go into the restricted area, intending to cause aircraft damage or cause any security threats such as bombs or go in, intending to harm anyone. All he did was deceived the cisco airport guard that he was actually working that day when he wasn't. In that context, i fail to see any evidence of any ill-menace or bad intention against the airport or any airport security issues.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              [QUOTE=RHG;153260The pilot didn't go into the restricted area, intending to cause aircraft damage or cause any security threats such as bombs or go in, intending to harm anyone. All he did was deceived the cisco airport guard that he was actually working that day when he wasn't. In that context, i fail to see any evidence of any ill-menace or bad intention against the airport or any airport security issues.[/QUOTE]

                              The rule is very simple. If he's not on duty, he should not be in there.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                EOD, the point being debated here lies not in the pilot's intention to cause harm or not, but more on the fact that as a licensed aviation personnel, he thought he could outsmart the system, alas not the case to be.

                                It is akin to disregard the trust bestowed upon him when being issued with the pilot's wings.

                                I hope he gets a stern punishment to warrant a hard lesson which will hopefully knock some sense into his juvenile mind. I will let the legal eagles here debate whether this is technically a criminal breach of trust.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X