Shouldn’t the most trusted airline traveler in the world be the person sitting in the cockpit of the plane?

Apparently not. As if the American flying public didn’t have enough to worry about, here comes news of two commercial pilots who were pulled from duty on allegations that they got behind the controls after drinking alcohol.

Granted, two problem children do not an industry crisis make. But they do point to the need for flight crews to go through the same screening procedures as the customers.

The passengers aboard America West’s Miami-to-Phoenix flight on July 1 have security screeners to thank for preventing a potential disaster. Yes, security screeners. The very people who have been subjected to countless verbal barrages and the casting of aspersions since Sept. 11 merely for doing their jobs making sure that no one boards a plane with a potential weapon.

In this case, the potential weapons were the men responsible for ensuring that 124 passengers, and the rest of the flight crew, made it safely from Florida to Arizona.

Screeners at the Miami airport reportedly alerted officials to the smell of alcohol wafting from two pilots who had gotten into a snit with them about taking coffee cups through the checkpoint. Federal guidelines now prohibit open containers of food or beverages through security machines.

By the time law enforcement responded to the call, the plane had pulled away from the gate. Police ordered its return, and both pilots were given a field sobriety test.

Breath checks revealed blood-alcohol levels in excess of Florida’s legal limit of 0.08 percent for intoxication, Miami-Dade police said. No way they would have registered that if the pilots had stopped imbibing, as required by Federal Aviation Administration rules, eight hours before a flight. America West’s policy is more stringent: No drinking within 12 hours of flying a plane.

The pilots posted bond and are scheduled for arraignment July 22. Each has been charged with a felony count of operating an aircraft under the influence.

This troubling situation raises legitimate questions about industry discussions to streamline the security experience for “trusted travelers.” Airline officials are wrestling with the problem of frequent fliers not being so frequent these days because they’re tired of the hassles of going through security.

Under consideration is a high-tech smart card that would let frequent fliers pass through airport security checkpoints faster than nonqualified passengers. Enrollees would have to pass a rigorous background check and submit biometric information such as fingerprints or an iris scan. The information would be embedded in a microchip in the card and, when scanned by a computer, would verify the holder’s ID.

The Air Transport Assn., the major airlines’ group, has signaled that it intends to ask the federal Transportation Security Administration next month for permission to test the concept with pilots and flight attendants who already have passed background checks.

How’s that for irony? If those America West pilots had been holding smart cards, the story of that Miami-to-Phoenix flight might have had an entirely different and tragic ending.

The words “convenience” and “security” can’t logically be paired in a sentence about airline travel in 2002. Are there smarter, more efficient ways of screening passengers? Probably. But shortcuts for certain passengers, be they sitting in the cockpit or the cabin, aren’t a good idea.

In an aside, National Public Radio aired a piece last week about the airline officials’ consternation that enhanced security screening is discouraging their most revered passengers the frequent flier from buying tickets. The reporter interviewed a regular traveler whose biggest complaint was the inconsistent treatment from one airport to another.

“I wear this big metal belt …” she began.

Stop right there. What kind of an out-of-touch nincompoop wears anything big and metal to an airport these days?

Come on, sister use the brain that God gave you, and give us poor schleps stuck in line behind you a break. You have no room to complain about inconsistent treatment she said five airports let her through while two others pulled her aside for closer scrutiny if you’re clueless enough to wear anything that begs for closer inspection.