Better than the rest of us? (Number two)
Thread Starter
Better than the rest of us? (Number two)
Can anyone confirm that a Captain refused to submit to an explosives trace detection test going through security at one of our major airports this week, causing a scene and eventual delay of the service?
If it's true - what is wrong with these people? Everyone knows it's just window dressing yet we all get on and do it. So many people these days believe that the world revolves around them
If it's true - what is wrong with these people? Everyone knows it's just window dressing yet we all get on and do it. So many people these days believe that the world revolves around them
I do know that some time ago a pilot failed the explosive residue test conducted before a pre-curfew departure in Sydney. The pilot was stood-down leaving insufficient crew to operate the flight. A standby pilot would not have arrived before curfew thus it appeared that the flight would be cancelled and passengers sent to hotels for the night.
As I understand it, common sense prevailed and the flight departed that evening.
As I understand it, common sense prevailed and the flight departed that evening.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without knowing the specific circumstances here it’s impossible to know if the Captain’s response was reasonable or not. To vilify him without this knowledge is unfair.
I’ve been clearly targeted by the ETD screeners on more than one occasion. Those occasions are few and far between admittedly. More often than not it’s just part of a “random and continuous” process as the regulation directs. I comply realising the guy is just doing his job. One I certainly wouldn’t want.
When it is clear crew are being targeted, I believe we all share the responsibility to highlight the issue. If that causes a delay so be it. Targeting crew is against the regulation and diminishes the effectiveness of the process as crew are a low risk group to begin with. While the crew member concerned is being screened, 3-4 others pass through security unscreened.
Any standard you walk past is a standard you accept.
I’ve been clearly targeted by the ETD screeners on more than one occasion. Those occasions are few and far between admittedly. More often than not it’s just part of a “random and continuous” process as the regulation directs. I comply realising the guy is just doing his job. One I certainly wouldn’t want.
When it is clear crew are being targeted, I believe we all share the responsibility to highlight the issue. If that causes a delay so be it. Targeting crew is against the regulation and diminishes the effectiveness of the process as crew are a low risk group to begin with. While the crew member concerned is being screened, 3-4 others pass through security unscreened.
Any standard you walk past is a standard you accept.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Unfortunately not the Orient
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
Received 88 Likes
on
32 Posts
I don't feel I have ever been targeted as crew, anywhere. It's usually just the next person to walk past.
It takes 15 seconds, and usually the screener has a quick chat. Some of them are a bit over the top, but generally they are fair people.
Doesn't change the fact that it is a total waste of time to perform this test on flight crew. But I believe most of them know how stupid it is and treat it with the seriousness it deeserves.
It takes 15 seconds, and usually the screener has a quick chat. Some of them are a bit over the top, but generally they are fair people.
Doesn't change the fact that it is a total waste of time to perform this test on flight crew. But I believe most of them know how stupid it is and treat it with the seriousness it deeserves.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What some pilots don't seem to understand is that while pilots are a low risk group, terrorists dressed as pilots are a high risk group. Would you trust a screener to be able to tell the difference?
If anyone thinks they are being targeted, I call bull****. Get over it.
If anyone thinks they are being targeted, I call bull****. Get over it.
I think it’s probably the case that people who look easy going might get targeted. I find the easiest way to get the explosives test is to look at the screener and smile. I’m basically saying, “g’day mate, I know your job is **** and you’re bored, wave your tester over my bag and clothes if you want, it’s all cool.” If I particularly want to avoid screening I just stare straight ahead and walk assertively past as though I have things to do and places to be. It doesn’t always work but I think it sways your chances one way or the other. This is all out of uniform.
One thing that has amused me lately while in uniform is having the screener test the entire crew with one swab. It might be more efficient and get us all through more quickly, but if it comes up positive you’re stuck with all of us and the company possibly has to replace the entire crew while it’s sorted out.
One thing that has amused me lately while in uniform is having the screener test the entire crew with one swab. It might be more efficient and get us all through more quickly, but if it comes up positive you’re stuck with all of us and the company possibly has to replace the entire crew while it’s sorted out.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An incident, that occurred to me personally (which I won’t elaborate on) was sufficient to highlight that fact.
The upshot was a high level pow wow from QANTAS security, government departments, Perth airport and the contractor concerned. The contractors own records proved that your chances of being screened as a crew member in uniform were 1 in 3, while the chances of being screened as a punter across the rest of the network were 1 in 7.
Clearly crew were being targeted, and the contractor concerned admitted it. The reason given was that Perth had a high concentration of FIFO mine workers who had a high rate of positives on the ETD scan. Also the miners were, as a general rule, a belligerent bunch.
The contractor thought it reasonable to take the path of least resistance and target crew who were generally compliant and were almost always negative tests.
So call bullsh1t if you like. You would be wrong.
The reason given was that Perth had a high concentration of FIFO mine workers who had a high rate of positives on the ETD scan. Also the miners were, as a general rule, a belligerent bunch.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That’s true. My incident was some time ago, before the randomiser came in.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has randomiser use been randomised?
The contractor thought it reasonable to take the path of least resistance and target crew who were generally compliant and were almost always negative tests.
Kayfabe the lot of it.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Lost, but often Indonesia
Posts: 652
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are crew targeted? I don't know but...
My brother was behind a guy who got pulled up by security because he was carrying sunscreen that was labelled 110mL, 10mL over (why a company would produce a 110mL product is beyond me). After a warning, he was allowed to proceed with his sunscreen. My brother had exactly the same sunscreen but this time security said bad luck, I'm confiscating it!
Hang on brother protested, you just let that guy away with, it's exactly the same stuff! "Too bad" was the response..
Right, said brother. Call your manager, there's been a breech of security, you let someone through with 110mL, I saw it!
He promptly got his sunscreen back.
Brother is a Captain, FO was behind him...
My brother was behind a guy who got pulled up by security because he was carrying sunscreen that was labelled 110mL, 10mL over (why a company would produce a 110mL product is beyond me). After a warning, he was allowed to proceed with his sunscreen. My brother had exactly the same sunscreen but this time security said bad luck, I'm confiscating it!
Hang on brother protested, you just let that guy away with, it's exactly the same stuff! "Too bad" was the response..
Right, said brother. Call your manager, there's been a breech of security, you let someone through with 110mL, I saw it!
He promptly got his sunscreen back.
Brother is a Captain, FO was behind him...
Because I believe it is now supposed to be random and continuous. As soon as one person's testing is complete, take the next available person. The randomness is just built into that, because if you're next, you're next. If people present at the ETD at a rate slow enough that everyone can get tested, then so be it.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It never ceases to amaze me how often the 'random' test picks me. I reckon I have about a 95% rate of being selected every time I go through security - I must look dodgy! 
(and that's travelling out of uniform through a variety of domestic ports also). I've tried the 'don't look at them and be in a hurry' and it doesn't seem to work for me...!
(and that's travelling out of uniform through a variety of domestic ports also). I've tried the 'don't look at them and be in a hurry' and it doesn't seem to work for me...!
Well Captain, perhaps you're one of the passengers who insist on waiting in the cafe till the aircraft door is about to close before going through security and complaining that " I always get picked". If you're the only one around....of course you get picked....or, perhaps you're on the list !
So I got tested, failed, and got tested again, failed. Then I was put on my way to go fly the aircraft.
Anyone else been tested and failed ? others I have spoken to just get sent on their way. Seems like a pointless exercise to scam more money out of airlines, airport users, and passengers and put it into “security” company coffers.
Anyone else been tested and failed ? others I have spoken to just get sent on their way. Seems like a pointless exercise to scam more money out of airlines, airport users, and passengers and put it into “security” company coffers.
Perhaps some re-ed-ucation is in order....
If you return a positive result, the machine is saying it thinks it smelt something interesting there...let me have another go.
If you then return a negative on the second test, a third test is done. If its also a negative, you're on your way.
If you return a positive on either the second or third test, then you will be subject to secondary screening...that is...a frisk search and a search of your carry on luggage...if you agree.
As the powers that be know, there are many innocuous causes of a positive reading. Therefore, the secondary screening is to ensure that you are not carrying "anything" that may have caused the positive return.
If nothing dastardly is found during secondary screening, it is assumed that your positive return was caused by one of those innocuous causes....and you are on your way.
Simple risk management practices to me......
If you return a positive result, the machine is saying it thinks it smelt something interesting there...let me have another go.
If you then return a negative on the second test, a third test is done. If its also a negative, you're on your way.
If you return a positive on either the second or third test, then you will be subject to secondary screening...that is...a frisk search and a search of your carry on luggage...if you agree.
As the powers that be know, there are many innocuous causes of a positive reading. Therefore, the secondary screening is to ensure that you are not carrying "anything" that may have caused the positive return.
If nothing dastardly is found during secondary screening, it is assumed that your positive return was caused by one of those innocuous causes....and you are on your way.
Simple risk management practices to me......