Security at NY

[Two Cocks]

Only in New York

I have to ask... What's the point of searching/screening the Crew before they get onboard the plane when they get onboard the plane and find a toolbelt (with knives, screwdrivers and all the stuff they take off you) lying on the galley section counter top?

I mean it's just sitting there with no-one around. It was picked up later but what is the point of screening the crew if the stuff is onboard already?

[261A]

find a toolbelt (with knives, screwdrivers and all the stuff they take off you) lying on the galley section counter top?

What?!

[hasta lueGO]

Yes, the crew could find items onboard the aircraft that they could use against the safety of the crew, aircraft or pax but searching staff helps to deter would be terrorists that might use an airside / crew workers to smuggle items onboard.

[wiggy]

You are missing the point completely; the maintenance staff seem to have done exactly what you are concerned about so the original question remains: whats the point in screening the crew for sharp objects ( and for G**** sake at JFK it's often a case of shoes off, belts off; watches off) when maintenance staff can legally carry knives and other sharp objects on board ?

[Captain Rat]

I have worked at one of the major airports in New York recently, as I was there on a temporary basis I had to get a temp pass for the ramp. This was easy enough with the correct paperwork, but involved going through a full screening/security point with x-ray of bag etc, ust to get to the office to get the pass. Once holding the pass, back out the way I had just come, back into a public area, then down a nearby corridor and out onto the airside ramp, only security was a chap who was not really interested but was briefly checking passes, but no facilities at all for xray etc of my bag.
Now onto a mjor London airport, if an engineer walks through the terminal staff entrance to work airside, he cant take a metal fork with him to eat his dinner, (although they are available on the aircraft) but he can take his tools box with a knife in or a leatherman as it is 'tools of the trade'. Shows what a total joke airport security is.

[Rainboe]

TC, you are missing the point. The intention is to show loudly and publicly to passengers and the public that the politicians have responded to the security emergency to the satisfaction of themselves mainly by demonstrating that ALL, passengers, crew and airport staff will go through security, removing their shoes, belts, watches and tieclips, undoing their trousers for some peculiar reason, and be frisked, treated like dirt, but at all times, everybody will feel that the politicians have earned their incredible emoluments and spent OUR, the taxpayers money, on a good cause, to fight 'terrorism'. It has not escaped their attention that several of the 911 culprits were 'pilots' and could fly planes (to a degree). Therefore crew are equally at risk of being 'terrorists' as passengers. In many cases, the TSA appears to pay special attention to crews, particularly to the Captain. There is definitely an atmosphere of 'up there YOU maybe God, but down here, I rule the roost, and you are going to take your shoes off and undo your trousers in public for ME!'

[hasta lueGO]

Please close this thread. Security always seems to bring the stupidity out in people. You're each intitled to your view as is the next person, just keep it to yourself please.

Either put up with it and follow the rules or challenge / question them with the Airport Security Manager at the location that causes you concern. . . .

[wingman863]

For christs sake hasta lueGO; what are you meant to do on an internet forum? The views expressed have not been unreasonable in any way and even if they were, why should people not express their opinions and asy you say, "keep thier views to themselves,"? The situation described with security is absurd. So much fuss is made but anyone with an ounce of grey matter could easily slip though the net, carring with them whatever they please.

A few weeks ago at Stansted I was met with an open door from the secure post-screening side of the terminal to the unsecure section. There was nothing to stop me from walking from one side to another without any sort of check. Yet, 10 minutes earlier I had had my bag screened, been frisked and taken my belt and shoes off to please the security (or lack thereof) staff.

Why search aircrew (especially pilots) so throughly when if they wanted to they could plough their jet into pretty much any building or mountain? Are there not rescue axes in the cockpit and armoured doors to prevent intervention from anyone in the cabin should a nut-case pilot decide to so either of the aforesaid actions?

There is a point where an element of trust has to be intrduced. Yes, search aircrew to check they are not smuggleing bags of heroin just like anyone else would be searched, but a pilot having a pen-knife is hardly a problem.

[carousel]

I've been working at Stansted for over a year on the security gates and scanners and never had to ask a pilot or f/o to remove a belt or shoes. the worst we do is ask to remove a jacket and cap. If of course you havn't the sense to take out your keys and small change you will get a little more investigation.
P.S. did you tell any one about the open door or are you happy to let security lapses happen?

[AUTOGLIDE]

I must be in a parallel universe. What do you want maintenance people to do? Fix the aircraft with a plastic tool-kit from Lego?
I know this comes as a shock to many people who apparently work in the aviation industry, but aircraft need maintaning and repairing.
maintenance staff have a responsibility to make sure they remove all tools when they leave, they, and those around them all have airside passes.
maintenance staff get searched just like everyone else, they just happen to be allowed to bring in tools through certain security gates in vehicles, i.e. not the passenger terminal security routes.
Why do air crew seem to take being searched as such a major hassle/insult? All other airline and airport staff have to do it far more frequently.

[Airbus340FO]

it has to cost money, and only then, they will change the procedures.

they can check me and scan me as often as they want. The more they are checking me, the sooner they will notice the stupidity of scanning pilots.

it is just money that counts.
wait til they let the ( financial ) controllers in.

[Pilot Pete]

Why do air crew seem to take being searched as such a major hassle/insult? All other airline and airport staff have to do it far more frequently.

Perhaps because of the futility? They are about to take control of the aeroplane, so what are they going to do with their Leatherman? Fight for control? I think not.

Other airport workers are NOT going to be getting airborne on the flight so their access needs to be monitored and searches carried out for good reason.

Remember, some of the 9/11 terrorists may have had some limited flying skills, but they were NOT operating aircrew. We have had background checks as operating crew, so if we are 'secure' enough to be issued with a pass and trusted to fly the aeroplane then searching us for offensive nail clippers is futile.

PP

[tropical wave]

Also, Has anyone noticed that TSA agents/guards try to get as close to you after exiting the scanner area ? [JFK & MIA] I get the uneasy feeling they are trying to smell alcohol.

[Globaliser]

Just as SLF watching the crew coming through the security checkpoints, can I ask this?

I believe it's quite easy to buy a current airline uniform or something that looks pretty close. How easy would it be to mock up something that looks pretty close to whatever passes you have to identify yourselves as crew? We all know the TSA screeners are never going to be forgery-detection experts. How easy would it be for an imposter to fool them into believing that they really are crew?

[FLCH]

Also, Has anyone noticed that TSA agents/guards try to get as close to you after exiting the scanner area ? [JFK & MIA] I get the uneasy feeling they are trying to smell alcohol.

Tropical wave....your uneasy feeling is completely valid.....nothing pumps them up more than "catching the big one".
I suggest pouring part of a small bottle of cheap scotch on your epaulettes, and watch the resulting fireworks !! ;)

[nitro rig driver]

FLCH
Maybe you should just not drink the night before-
Problem solved

I think i'd rather have the TSA looking for the "big one"
than not looking for anything at all

[hazehoe]

Nitro, i am sure they are looking for good poeple to help them catch the " big one";)

[Sans Anoraque]

It's now been 4 years since 9/11 and so is probably time to take a look at what is really necessary for airline security.

Can anybody explain why anything other than bomb sniffer dogs at the gate and locked cockpit doors are required? There's very little point smuggling a weapon on to a plane if you can't use it to take control.

Sensible answers please!

[DuncanF]

Pilot Pete,

Your rationale for not searching flight crew when you go airside is, I'm afraid, specious.

As soon as you have people allowed airside without a search then you also have people who could be coerced (someone could kidnap your family) into carrying naughty things through to hand to the bad guys.

It's has nothing at all to do with you and what you could do with your aircraft.

Sorry to point out the bleedin' obvious ... ;-)

Duncan

[vector4fun]

For christs sake hasta lueGO; what are you meant to do on an internet forum?


Ummmm, re-hash the same irritating Policies and procedures 1,265,749,521 times?

Did I win? :confused:

[cwatters]

I guess if you really wanted to address this issue the aircraft would have to be taken to the tools rather than the tools to the aircraft. With appropriate searches on it's return obviously. All possible but somewhat costly and time consuming.

[Pilot Pete]

DuncanFAs soon as you have people allowed airside without a search then you also have people who could be coerced (someone could kidnap your family) into carrying naughty things through to hand to the bad guys.

OK, so why don't we take it one step further. Why are airport police allowed to 'roam' land/airside without going through the same procedure? They can carry firearms airside! It comes down to trust. At some point you HAVE to trust the various background checks etc that have been done. Who is to say that said policeman would not have his family kidnapped and the same threats made as to you allude to above?

Sorry for pointing out the bleeding obvious.;)

PP

[FlyingConsultant]

OK, I am SLF, but as such...

people who could be coerced (someone could kidnap your family) into carrying naughty things through to hand to the bad guys

Agree 100%, therefore everybody needs to be searched

Why are airport police allowed to 'roam' land/airside without going through the same procedure? They can carry firearms airside!

Yes, but I think they should be searched for additional items. What about explosives? Certainly we can have different policies for pax, aircrew, mechanics, police, yesno?

Who is to say that said policeman would not have his family kidnapped and the same threats made as to you allude to above

Nothing, you are correct. But as above, I can make sure that all s/he has is the gun, not explosives. And maybe an opportunity to alert somebody quietly to his/her calamity.

I understand the sentiment here - at some point you have to trust. But you can and should make sure.

In my mind, the issue here is not the fact that flight crew has to be searched. The issue is inadequate procedures at some airports. Some screeners seem to get a kick out of searching air crew and bossing them around (seen that myself).

Personally, I see no problem with having a separate "crew/personal checkpoint", as some airports already have. Staff it with folks who can actually see whether an ID tag is fake or acurate. Staff it with the same folks ever time so they recognize people. Make sure aircrew/mechanics/etc can give feedback on behavior to a supervisor. This is not that much of additional expense per pax, would make your life easier, and everybody is happy.

[faultygoods]

Guys, security is for your safety. Engineers sometimes do have to use sharp objects to to maintain A/C and sadly forget where they left them, but thats a different subject.

I have to remove my shoes each time I go through ORD and i wear a skirt and as for my shoes its obvious there is no room to hide any thing.:}

[Bomber Harris]

I guess if we said there is no point having security checks because engineers can bring pointy obects in, then we would all be say that it's rediculous that ANYONE can walk through security with a knife, even office staff working airside.

There has to be a certain 'do as much as practically possible' attitude to this. You're not going to plug all the wholes, but you're a fool for not trying.

Having said that, Dublin security is laughable sometimes. I once heard an engineer walked through with a leatherman and security asked him what it was. He said "a leatherman, you know, a knife and pliers and all that in one tool!" the security man just said "thats ok, now take your shoes off and put them through the scanner". The engineer replied "Why? What are you hoping to find, a knife?"

I think it's hilarious but it does show you that security can loose focus on what they are trying to achieve. But hey, hats off, they are aiming to achieve the impossible.

[grand slam]

The politicians certainly like to be seen to be 'doing something', but the millions being spent on airport security screening are, for the most part, wasted.
I have handled ceramic knives and Kevlar knives. They are undetectable by the airport metal detectors. At terminal 4 Heathrow they are very proud of their machine which will look through clothing and see solid objects of a non-metallic nature. However, the machine cannot look beyond skin. I have handled a knife shaped to be inserted into a bodily orifice which the terminal 4 machine will not pick up.
Whatever the security procedures are designed to do, they will not stop a terrorist getting a bladed weapon on to an aircraft. Getting excited about leathermen is futile.
Neither do current procedures have any chance of stopping a bomber. As any special forces man will tell you, C4 military explosive and its stablemate semtex, can be disguised from machine sniffers by the simple expedient of wrapping the stuff in clingfilm. Care needs to be taken in the wrapping, in that the person who places the C4 should not be the wrapper. C4 in a cigar tube inserted into an orifice would never be detected at Heathrow or anywhere else. You have a clock radio in your bag which is set up to take an explosive charge. Would any of our airport security people recognise its purpose. No chance. All you need now is a little help from Hamas, who have been shown by the Iranians how to make a sophisticated shaped charge and you have the means of taking down the flight deck door.
Before I am accused of giving ideas to terrorists, may I remind you that the terrorists devote themselves daily to working out how to achieve their next atrocity. We spend 5 minutes in the cruise coming up with ideas. How many ideas do you think the dedicated terrorists come up with.
If you gave 6 students from an Engineering faculty 6 months to come up with credible ideas for penetrating security, does anyone doubt that they would come up with a multitude of successful methods.
So lets get real on security. It is ineffective at deterring the terrorist although it is very effective at disarming law-abiding citizens.
The only means we have of detecting C4 in clingfilm is by the use of sniffer dogs. They are more sensitive than machines. We could save a fortune by exchanging the present security apparatus for dogs. Even then the dogs are not infallible but they are the best we have.
Next, we need to get it into our heads that the aircraft cabin can be penetrated at will by blade carrying terrorists, even if they have passed through the security screen, so the re-inforced flight deck door is essential. If that is blown by a low yield shaped charge, then the pilots must be armed and trained to defend the flightdeck. By that I do not mean that they should enter the cabin; merely defend the flightdeck. If we do not resolve to defend the flightdeck, we invite another 9/11

[paulthornton]

Apologies for causing even more thread creep than we are suffering already, as this didn't happen anywhere near NY.

Earlier this month I flew (only as pax ... sensibly, nobody lets me fly anything that big) PSP-SFO and then SFO-LHR. On the first occasion at Palm Springs the security checker said to me "I recommend you remove your shoes" whilst I was putting laptops in seperate boxes and removing jackets etc. When I walked through the scanner, with shoes still attached to feet saying "Its OK, there isn't really any metal in them; they don't set it off" an agitated security bod once again "Recommended that I removed my shoes" and told me to go back. Once said shoes had been removed, I could proceed.

Now when someone makes a recommendation to me, I will - of course - listen to it politely and weigh up the various merits of their recommendation and decide if I accept it. Apparently, however, what this chap actually meant was "Sir, could you please remove your shoes and put them through the scanner with everything else, otherwise you aren't going any further through this airport or worse"; and he was happy once I did so.

I asked the security people at SFO about this when, once again, the removal of my footware was recommended to me. The polite lady there told me that they were not allowed to ask people to remove their shoes. I explained my last experience with PSP security, and pointed out that they wouldn't let you through unless you did, so why not just ask for what you want? Both of us just nodded at the absurdity of it as I went through the detector.

So please, anyone from the US side of the atlantic - which damned political correctness means that the security people don't even ask us what they want us to do any more? Thus increasing frustration at something that we all find a irritation at best and pointless at worst (as others have already said - there are ways that airport security could be circumvented by the determined).

A somewhat puzzled Paul.

[derekl]

grand slam has got it almost 100% right. The terrorist will find a new way.

While I appreciate that this is an aviation forum, don't ignore the bigger picture. The terrorists will find some completely different vulnerability to attack. Close off aviation completely -- if such a thing were possible -- and they'll blow up the tube or buses. Oops, sorry, that's been done. And we can't actually do a damned thing about a possible repetition, however the politicians and their "expert advisors" huff and puff.

Pick another target: how about a few major hotels in London? That would do the trick.

My point is that we fixate on the least likely or the flawed: like flight deck doors. We'd been through all that in the past and relaxed it because the threat changed. Come 9/11, and we pretend that we can eliminate the threat with armoured doors (again). Which are opened by CC to take the flight crew coffee and meals.

You have to keep the bandits off the planes, it's already too late when they're aboard.

I could go on, but I'd bore you to no effect.