Originally Posted by
b2pilot186
The end result is not, but the method is...as you just admitted. That was my only point...like I said. I simply disagreed with your assertion that the checks are no different in the military...you have no idea what a military background check involves. I have been through both processes. We are held to a higher standard during military background checks...necessarily so when dealing with heavily-armed aircraft. This isn't a mil vs. civ contest...it's just reality. We may not be infallible, but if we screw up with nukes the "brass tacks" results are off the scale in disaster potential.
B2P
You missed my point. I do know what is involved with higher security clearances and background checks and I never meant that they're the same as an airline's background check. What I said;
It doesn't matter if the check is more thorough. Like you said, it needs to be updated and pilots with previous jobs that involved high security clearances are no different and definitely not infallible.
Any new-hire at an airline should go through the background checks....no matter how thorough their past checks. Like I said, when it comes to brass tacks, it is no different from the military.
Perhaps I should have worded that last sentence better;
It is no different for new-hires from the military, nor should it be.
And no, I'm not trying to turn this into a military vs. civilian contest and the "brass tacks"
of this thread has nothing to do with your scenario about screwing up with nukes.
My post was in reply to a post that implied an airline background check is redundant because of a security clearance that was held in the past. My point is that the bottom line;
No matter what level of background checks one has been through in the past, due to reasons I stated earlier about no one being infallible, ALL airline new-hires should undergo the same background checks.