Security checks for crews are getting to the riduculous! [Archive]

Mud Skipper

12th Jan 2006, 18:47

I just thought it was another tool being used by management to belittle and undermine us in our overly envied positions as airline pilots. I can see an office of industrial physcologists dreaming that one up.
My other crew member was detained 10 minutes recently as they went through and through his bag and found nothing and this was his second time through security that day, without leaving a sterile area. Sadly what they don't get is that the more we are harrassed in this fashion, the less we are engaged, I am not going to make up that 10 minutes by departure time but am now happily be late. If our CP does not care how his pilot body is treated then the feeling may as well be reciprocated.

The latest trick is we can not even get out of the airbridge for the walkaround at many airports and spend another 10 minutes finding some casual by the hour employee who can give us access and then another 5 minutes finding a cleaner or engineer to let us back in. I could write a flight crew report but now simply could not be bothered to put my name to anything, I might get shot at.

After a while you just stop careing but find sadly it's been part of this careing that made up the passion you once had for flying. :( :( :( :(

armada

12th Jan 2006, 22:43

Seems even worse for management! :uhoh:

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,17785550%255E661,00.html

Qantas chief frisked as terrorism suspect.
John Masanauskas
11jan06

QANTAS chairman Margaret Jackson was suspected of being a terrorist and frisked during a visit to the US last year.

The airport security guard who checked her was reluctant to believe that a woman could be the head of an airline.
Mrs Jackson said yesterday her briefcase was searched after she went through a security check at Los Angeles airport.

Among her documents were detailed plans of new aircraft, including cross-section diagrams showing seat layouts.

"The guy said `Why have you got all of this?'," she told the Herald Sun.

"And I said, `I'm the chairman of an airline. I'm the chairman of Qantas'. And this black guy, who was, like, eight foot tall, said, `But you're a woman',"

Mrs Jackson revealed the incident yesterday in Beijing during a media conference to promote Qantas' new direct flights between Australia and Beijing. She raised it after a Chinese journalist complained that airport security at Australian airports was the most strict after the US.

Mrs Jackson, who was travelling with her husband, said her LA experience took about an hour.

After proving her identity, Mrs Jackson produced paper with her letterhead on it and wrote a note to the guard, whose name was Bill.

"And I wrote, `Dear Bill, this is from the chairman of Qantas, who is a woman'."

Qantas will resume flights to Beijing after pulling out of the market in the late 1990s because of low bookings.

But tourism and business links with China are booming and more than two million Chinese are expected to visit Australia annually by 2025.

Qantas is operating three flights a week between Beijing and Sydney, but this is expected to increase to daily within two years.

Direct services from Melbourne will be considered later depending on demand.

Colonel Klink

12th Jan 2006, 23:01

Team Player, the Captain of the Silkair accident many years ago allegedly hijacked his own aircraft to then disable the FO and crash it into a river. The CVR and FDR CB's were both pulled before the aircraft went into a steep dive, even though no failures were evident before this. Also, the Egyptair accident of a 767 was caused by the FO doing the same, even though no drill calls for the 767 Engine start levers to be put to cut-off simultaneously. Also, although non-operating crew (he was deadheading) the FEDEX accident of a DC-10 was due to a deranged FE who was about to be sacked. Also, I believe there was an hijacking attempt of a turbo-prop in RAM, Morrocco and a PSA 146 also by disgruntled ex-employees.
It does seem a bit silly to relieve the crew of scissors, screwdrivers when there is a heavy fire extinguisher, crash axe, oxy bottles and goodness knows what else in or near the flight deck. If you really want to hurt a pilot, take away his duty free!

Ron & Edna Johns

13th Jan 2006, 00:17

Mud Skipper - as much as I'm trying to look for the positives in the job these days, I really am starting to think you are 100% correct.............. :suspect:

Another example of what you are saying is the banning of dependants from the flight-deck...... :suspect:

What a disgrace of a country and a company we have become.

TooLowTerrain

13th Jan 2006, 01:04

Now im just asking so please dont abuse me.

Would it not make sense to be 'safe than sorry' cause I bet there is at least one pilot somewhere in the world that is a bit fanatical about his beliefs and cant wait to meet his maker.....

One more....

If the outside world believe pilots to be beyond security checks would that not encourage some terror group to send the boys in posing as pilots?

I am a police officer and when at the airport, I was searched by some three quid an hour security boff and when I say searched I mean, he put his hand all over me.... So, I do know how it feels and I dont like it but I also understand... better to be safe than sorry.

I know someone is gonna have a swipe at me for speaking:}

Leezyjet

13th Jan 2006, 01:43

Why do some of you fly guys think you are above security ?. It's there to protect your asses at the end of the day, not the 3 quid an hour guy working the x-ray machine's ass - just like those Police Officers with the big guns too.

would that not encourage some terror group to send the boys in posing as pilots?

Did they not do that already on 11/09 ?.

TooLowTerrain

13th Jan 2006, 02:03

Posing as a pilot in an airport is not the same as hijacking an aircraft that is already in flight....

Kaptin M

13th Jan 2006, 03:11

Did they not do that already on 11/09 ?.
They (the hijackers) did NOT "pose" as operating crew.
At least one of them, Mohamed Al Atta, had a pilot's licence, and supposedly used this to request - and gain - entry to the flight deck, as an interested observer.
Access to the flight deck ever since - even to children, is now absolutely prohibited by most (if not all) airlines....even to our own family members!
I'm know that there are some people with very imaginative minds (even employed by airlines), who believe that "someone" with a basic knowledge of flying, and a stolen uniform, is somehow going to pass themself off as operating crew, to the others (real) crew operating the flight.
The mentality that has dreamt this up is somewhere around Infant school age, and totally unaware of how crew interact, and expect certain company procedures (wrt format of briefing, delegation of duties, etc, etc) to be followed, when dealing with each other, and with other company personnel.
"Ring-ins" would stand out like dog's b@lls in about the first 5 seconds.
A
nd in the Silk Air, and Egypt Air cases, did either of those 2 (from all knowledge) use a weapon?
No!

Ron & Edna Johns

13th Jan 2006, 03:16

No Leezyet, they didn't send boys in posing as pilots. They boarded as passengers, started slashing the throats of passengers and cabin crew until the pilots let them into the cockpit.

9/11 would not have been prevented, and will not be prevented again, by having background-checked, security pass-wearing pilots being harassed three or four times a day as to whether the paper-flight plan contains a sharp implement (!), Captain's tennis rackets being confiscated (!) or hassled as to why we are carrying diagrams in our brief-cases of airports.....!

Mate, we would just use the crash-axe on the other bloke if we were that way inclined. EVERYBODY knows that. But you know what? 99.99999999999999999999999% of blokes aren't that way inclined. So focus the resources where they NEED to be focused.

What planet are you on?

surely not

13th Jan 2006, 08:37

Let me make my position a little clearer.......... I also think much of the petty security that is imposed at airports today is ill targeted, unnecessary, over the top and probably a complete waste of time. I too have fumed at being asked to take my shoes off, remove my lap top from its case and put it through seperately, take my belt off my trousers even before it has had a chance to set off the AMD. I also get fed up with the thieves charter in the USA which says you cannot make your personal items secure by locking your case.................................but

comments such as

'You might like to cite me just ONE instance of where an operating crew member has hijacked/attempted to his own aircraft.'

are pretty dumb. Before 9/11 no one could give an example of 2 a/c being deliberately flown into a high rise building, but it did happen didn't it.

Am I not right in thinking that there has been one instances at least of an airliner being crashed because the pilot wished to end it all?

Superpilot (no ego in that name is there!) to be a screener you have to give detailed background checks in way more depth than is required for flight deck or cabin crew, plus they have regular profficiency checks that if they fail, they are taken off line and re trained or sacked if they fail again.

FlyBlue I agree that the screener can be unpleasantly invasive, and in a past life I reported a guard that some of my staff had complained was 'too thorough'. Video evidence was checked, and without his knowing he was monitored for a week. At the end of it I was told that actually he was the only one performing the check as thoroughly as it should be!!

The current security regs are not pleasant for anyone, but I would feel unhappy getting on an aircraft knowing the crew hadn't been screened.

Ron & Edna Johns

13th Jan 2006, 09:25

Well, Surely Not, surely you would be unhappy getting on an aircraft in Sydney International Airport, where 90% of airside workers continue to pass airside without being screened..... Just citing one example. The media got wind of this a few months ago, the pollies huffed and puffed and made all sorts of promises. And precisely NOTHING has changed, because the fixes would either be (a) costly or (b) extremely inconvenient. And it's not front page news anymore so the pressure's off.

For security to be respected, it has to be credible and logical. It is neither.

3Greens

13th Jan 2006, 09:42

i think a lot of people here are missing the point. We don't need to carry explosives, knives, box-cutters on board to gain access to the FD. The numpties in the airports don't seem to understand this. When i borad the a/c i turn er...left towards the flight deck as that is where the controls were last time i looked.
As far as airport security goes if you pay peanuts you get monkeys...:mad:

3Greens

13th Jan 2006, 09:46

Just to add had to laugh when at Athens recently the Capt had his nailclippers/nail file confiscated at security and was told that they'd be handed to the aircraft Captain who would carry them in the flight deck and returned to him after the flight. Eh! but i am the Captain he says, but this just didn't compute.
end result...nail clippers carried to the gate by security staff and er...handed to the same Captain on the flight deck to carry them for said flight.

bjcc

13th Jan 2006, 10:09

The security checks are no there to prevent a pilot dieciding, as in Eygptair or Silk air examples, to nose dive. It can't do that. Nor will it prevent any act like that. But again the searches/screening isn't there for that reason.
It's already been pointed out that the idea is to stop a weapon or similar being passed to someone else. Again, it's been mentioned, if AQ. or similar think that crew are an easy route to get things airside they will use it.
Claiming that crew are holders of security passes, so the screening is unessesary is frankly neive. What depth do you think those checks go to? A Counter Terrorist Check, (in the UK)which only reveals a criminal record and if a person is suspected of being involved in terrorism. Not very helpful, of those involved in the tube bombings in the UK, only one would have come up with anything on that check.
Yes, airlines do their own background checks as many big companies do, but that can only go so far, and is easily fooled. Look at the number of reporters who have managed to get jobs at airports.
Deeper vetting is maybe one answer, but even thats not fool proof. Look at Blunt (MI5) and co.
So although it may seem a waste of time, there are reasons behind the searching of crew. It's not going to change, so maybe it's better to just let it go over your head.

His dudeness

13th Jan 2006, 10:13

Quote:
I am a police officer and when at the airport, I was searched by some three quid an hour security boff and when I say searched I mean, he put his hand all over me.... So, I do know how it feels and I dont like it but I also understand... better to be safe than sorry.

Dunno about your place, but in germany police officers do carry a gun and do have to go through screening to go airside...now tell me, why do I search for weapons if a guy has one at his belt OPENLY? What else would he carry? A nail clipper?

Its about time to get into a normal mode...at my homebase, we drive through a gate, then you are searched if you go to the right (socalled security area). Now the firebrigade is to the left, they are not searched. If they would have a job in the security area, they and their vehicles must be searched.

WHAT HAPPENED TO COMMON SENSE ?

Security, what a bitter joke...

Kaptin M

13th Jan 2006, 10:42

surely not you just don't get it, do you?! :bored:
Before 9/11 no one could give an example of 2 a/c being deliberately flown into a high rise building, but it did happen didn't it.
The aircraft in 911 were HIJACKED - but NOT by the crew.
Prior to 911, other aircraft had also been hijacked, however the recommended approach was one of obedient, non-confrontational compliance by the crew, with the hijacker(s).

Am I not right in thinking that there has been one instances at least of an airliner being crashed because the pilot wished to end it all?
And in those cases, did the suicidal pilot use a weapon? (Answer=NO).
Would a physical body search have found anything on that pilot that would have prevented the crash? (Answer=NO).

I would feel unhappy getting on an aircraft knowing the crew hadn't been screened.And it is to that sort of mentality that these checks are aimed.
Pax SEEING crew being screened.
What they DON'T see though, is what CAN harm them....the (terrorist) caterer who loads explosives in the galley trolley....the cleaner who plants explosives somewhere in the aircraft....the lame who leaves a weapon, or explosives, planted for one of the screened pax......the bloody great crash axe in the cockpit, accessable by all flight deck members.
But that's okay, because the security screeners have pulled the Captain's nail clippers, and the F/O's Swiss Army knife!

Feel secure in your naievete, surely not. :O

surely not

13th Jan 2006, 12:13

Kaptin M I feel it is you that doesn't 'get it'.
The point re 'before 9/11' was to say that it was not in anyones belief that such an act could happen. I made no mention of who did what, just that prior to the tragedy no-one would have believed such an act likely. This was to answer a point made along the lines that just because there is no recorded instance of a crew member taking over their own plane it wont happen'. Clearer?

The reason for mentioning the suicidal crew was to show that even you Gods of the skies have colleagues who are capable of doing the unthinkable regardless of the consequences to others. The point wasn't connected (other than by you) with whether the crew had been screened or not, smuggled weapons or not. Clearer?

If you had read the first part of my post I think you would have found it read 'I also think much of the petty security that is imposed at airports today is ill targeted, unnecessary, over the top and probably a complete waste of time. I too have fumed at being asked to take my shoes off, remove my lap top from its case and put it through seperately, take my belt off my trousers even before it has had a chance to set off the AMD. I also get fed up with the thieves charter in the USA which says you cannot make your personal items secure by locking your case.

Naive I am certainly not, nor do I have absolute faith that there are no bad apples in the pilot community just because they fly the planes, which would be very naive IMO.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with my views but at least keep the response in the meaning of what was written.

captcat

13th Jan 2006, 12:32

I would feel unhappy getting on an aircraft knowing the crew hadn't been screened
surely not
in order to carry out our duties we need some items that would be forbidden at the security check...we do have them already on board anyway. I won't enumerate them because it would not be a good idea on a public Forum, but believe we do. But if that makes you feel better to know crew members are not hiding a deadly swiss knife in their shoes...

Kaptin M

13th Jan 2006, 12:52

I'm afraid you really ARE quite naieve wrt this subject, surely not - and why you persist in demonstrating that naievete time and time over, really had me wondering - until I read the little (envious) dig..."Gods of the skies" :rolleyes:

The point re 'before 9/11' was to say that it was not in anyones belief that such an act could happen.It might not have been in YOUR (naieve) belief, however in the late 1970's, a young British pilot by the name of Colin Foreman deliberately flew a Baron into the hangar of Connellan Airlines, in Australlia, killing a number of employees.
Prior to that, one must assume you had never heard of the Japanese kamikaze pilots of WW2.
In late 1999, a young Japanese passenger forcibly entered the cockpit of an All Nippon aircraft, killed the Captain by stabbing him, and then threatened to fly the B747 into the Rainbow Bridge in Tokyo.
no-one would have believed such an act likely.
What you mean is, YOU were unaware of ALL of these, yet you doggedly persist in displaying this naievete in post after post here.

"It is sometimes better to keep one's mouth shut, and APPEAR a fool, than to open it, and remove all doubt".

Nearly Nigel

13th Jan 2006, 12:55

I'm afraid surely not, that I'm with Kaptin M on this one...

nor do I have absolute faith that there are no bad apples in the pilot community just because they fly the planes

Any such bad apples do not need a weapon to take control of the the cockpit... They just wait until you go to the washroom, lock you out and they've cracked it.

How do you imagine that confiscating their nail clippers/scissors/Swiss army knife beforehand is going to affect the situation? And anyway, don't engineers have all kinds of dangerous stuff whilst airside as part of the tools of their trade? Can't they just give it to someone?

There is no joined up policy, because no such policy can usefully be made. It is a sop to the travelling public and most of us grudgingly accept that. Just don't expect me to be happy about it though.

surely not

13th Jan 2006, 12:57

I stand corrected I-Ford, I was alive for all those events yet remembered not one of them:ouch:

Capt Cat I am aware of what a crew need to carry on board for their duties thks, and yes it is silly that corkscrews etc have been confiscated. That said I still see no reason why crew shouldn't go through a security check.

Kaptin M you are quite pompous at times aren't you. Yes I knew of the Kamikaze pilots in WW2 but didn't equate military pilots flying military aircraft at highly armed ships with commercial airliners flown at unprotected static buildings.
No I wasn't aware the UK pilot in Oz, but it probably didn't get reported in UK.

Naive you say simply because I differ with you?? Envious? No, it was sarcasm at how some of the pilot fraternity come across to non flyers in aviation

Can you guys not read?? Nail clippers and such like would fall into the category of pointless over the top security that I agree is a waste of time.........read the post don't scan over it!!!!!!

Leezyjet

13th Jan 2006, 12:57

No Leezyet, they didn't send boys in posing as pilots. They boarded as passengers, started slashing the throats of passengers and cabin crew until the pilots let them into the cockpit.

The documentaries that I have watched on Discovery etc. claimed that at least one of them went through security dressed as a passenger then once through put on a crew jacket thus posing as flight crew to be able to gain access to the f/deck.

You ladies and gents that fly the a/c have rules and regs that you have to adhere to and so do those pieces of cr@p that are just there to hassle you and give you grief but are usless in reality as many of you claim. Many of you wouldn't dream of breaking those rules and regs and they don't either as you and they risk loosing their jobs and nobody wants that.

You all chose to work in the industry so have to accept that security screening is a major part of it, so rather than hassling those low paid chaps on the screening points, why not just go with the flow and get on with it, it actually takes more time to argue with them than it would to go with the flow. If you don't agree with something, then don't take things with you that might cause a problem - Do you really need nail clippers - why not cut them at home before you go, or why not write to the authorities and put your point forward rather then taking it out on the people who cannot do anything about it.

:)

SLFguy

13th Jan 2006, 12:58

My understanding of the issue is that crew being screened, (and being seen to be screened), has less to do with any perceived threat that they pose, rather it was to show 'one avenue of threat had been closed'. An illustration of this would be the kidnapping/threat of harm to a crews family if "you don't carry this weapon through the check point and then pass it to my colleague we will kill your family".
If there are no checks this becomes a very viable and frankly very frightening means to get weapons airside.

Before I get bombarded with "what about a/c cleaners/caterers etc I would reiterate...."ONE avenue of threat has been closed"....not all.

I suspect however the people checking don't even realise this and fail to treat crew with the courtesy that they deserve.

Kaptin M

13th Jan 2006, 13:36

Agreed, SLFguy.
However, the point many of us are TRYING to get across here, is not that we ("Gods of the skies") object to a security check, but that if WE are going to be subjected to it, to decrease the risk of a threat, then EVERYONE who goes airside must also be properly screened, because the tech. crew are the LEAST likely potential threat.

Fluke

13th Jan 2006, 15:56

It’s not the security check itself that annoys me so much, but rather the time it takes out of your pre flight preparation on long haul flights. It takes a lot longer to get crew and pax on an aircraft these days and the airline companies (or at least the ones I have worked for), refuse to acknowledge this in our planned duty times. The same for drug and alcohol testing! Fair enough in principle but it should be reflected in our pre or post flight duty time.

bjcc

13th Jan 2006, 17:55

Kaptin M

But everyone going airside (in the UK)IS screened, including engineers! catering staff and cleaners. Both they and their equpitment are subject to search.

The only exception that I am aware of is poice officers, and that may not be the case still, but it was at LHR before 9/11. Although we did have to walk through the metal dectectors (pointless, and actually annoyed the pax and other staff more than achieve anything).

His dudeness

13th Jan 2006, 18:21

Quote leeyjet:
You all chose to work in the industry so have to accept that security screening is a major part of it, so rather than hassling those low paid chaps on the screening points, why not just go with the flow and get on with it, it actually takes more time to argue with them than it would to go with the flow

1) Firstly, when I started we weren´t checked at all
2) I don´t argue with screeners. They do their job.
3) I´m an air taxi pilot, that means that on an average day I pass the checkpoints roughly 6 to 10 times. When you are searched 10 times a day, it becomes simply unnerving. I can´t comment for other countries, but in Germany, to get an airside pass, they run a check on you, that reveals EVERYTHING that in the files on you. Secret services of all sorts check you, the police does etc etc. If one would fail this background check or refuses it, he would get his licence pulled. Who else would loose everything? If you´re a cleaner you can clean offices instead of aircraft. I can´t fly trucks or boats...
Next question, why the f... aren´t train passengers (and drivers) check. Anyone remebembering Madrid and London? Where is the check on your religious background and mind if you´re driving a truck, carrying maybe 40 tons of highly explosive fuel? (anyone remembering Djerba?) Or if you are working with chemicals?
9/11 was awful and IT WAS ON TV. LIVE, more or less. For weeks we saw the pictures again and again. THAT IS why "something" is done - no other reason whatsoever. IMO.

paulo

13th Jan 2006, 18:21

Agreed, SLFguy.
the tech. crew are the LEAST likely potential threat.

You've not got "genuine flight crew" written in to your DNA and you are not being screened by a scientist. You are turning up in fancy dress with an easily forged ID and are being screened by an underpaid and probably very bored person.

When the ID goes biometric, with the data stored on a central DB, there's a case, until then it's only safe to assume people aren't who they appear to be.

beaver eager

13th Jan 2006, 19:12

When the ID goes biometric, with the data stored on a central DB, there's a case, until then it's only safe to assume people aren't who they appear to be.

Now that's the first decent argument in favour that I've heard so far. Unfortunately, it falls down slightly on the question of whether it is possible for an imposter to mix with real crew successfully without being noticed.

paulo

13th Jan 2006, 19:17

Now that's the first decent argument in favour that I've heard so far. Unfortunately, it falls down slightly on the question of whether it is possible for an imposter to mix with real crew successfully without being noticed.

Not much imagination needed to suss that one! :)

flyblue

13th Jan 2006, 19:24

Leezyjet
You all chose to work in the industry so have to accept that security screening is a major part of it, so rather than hassling those low paid chaps on the screening points, why not just go with the flow and get on with it, it actually takes more time to argue with them than it would to go with the flow
1)when I chose to work in the industry we didn't need a CAT scan :rolleyes: and full body/hair search to go through security.
2)I've never seen anyone arguing with the Security Agents. It would be pointless, unless you want to be on the news.

TooLowTerrain

13th Jan 2006, 21:08

Several posts have mentioned the fact that aircrew are security screened.
This argument does not hold much water due to the fact that most terror group have SLEEPERS that do not rear their ugly head until the last minute so, they will be an unknown to police and special branch systems.

These checks may seem pointless to some but if they prevent security loop holes then i'm happy.

I reckon Another incident similar to 9/11 will put alot of pilots out of work

Mad Buzzard

13th Jan 2006, 21:09

hey captain,:eek: if you don't let him crash this plane the FO will cut your nails...:ok:

Capt Claret

14th Jan 2006, 04:25

bjcc

Everyone in the UK may be screened but here in the land of Oz, where our PM has to breathe through is rectum, because his heads so far up George Dubya's, it's only pax & friends and TECH/CABIN crew who are screened!!!!

I regularly arrive at my aircraft to find that the catering supervisor has been seated in row 1 for up to half an hour, unsupervised, reading the paper. S/he hasn't been screened, neither has their van, nor have the catering loaders, or baggies, or engineers, or ramp staff, etc etc etc. Any other airline employee with an access card can legally bypass screening unless they're boarding the aeroplane for the purpose of flight.

Now, others have stated that the screening is to stop 'pilots' from smuggling a weapon into the sterile area and then giving it to another person. If this reason was valid, then all persons would be screened.

This whole charade makes a mockery of the so called security measures, which I believe are only in place so that governments can fool "joe public", and them selves, that they're doing something. :mad: :yuk: :yuk: :mad:

hazehoe

14th Jan 2006, 10:43

As stated by others if the flight crew is searched than everybody needs to be searched,which means the screeners need to be screened every time they go through .police needs to be screened ,so screen absolutely everybody and make sure that there is no family connection between any of the screeners and the police men going through, or is it not possible for any of the police officers to have there family kidnapped as stated above?
It looks to me that flight crew gets extra attention,lets stop one of the pilots just because i can,the example of a torch carried by one of the pilots being a "problem" just shows that some are getting a little bit to excited with there job.
SCREEN everybody NO exceptions.

superpilut

14th Jan 2006, 11:06

Its just a show, and we are very suitable actors. If it keeps 'em happy, well lets keep it like that. You will not be able to change this worldwide bureaucracy.

Genghis the Engineer

14th Jan 2006, 11:46

I suspect it is all about visibility.

The real checks, that are most likely to make a difference, are intelligence related - it is the non-obtrusive (but actually far more inquisitive) stuff like sniffers in the baggage handling, random phone and Email intercepts, background checks, and so-on.

I've occasionally forgotten about a swiss army knife and had it taken away (to be returned at the other end, phew) when travelling as a pax, and once had to argue the point with an overzealous security official when flying P2 - but my hobby is teaching martial arts! I don't need a 3½" bit of steel to kill somebody - as well as all of the arguments given above.

For that matter anybody can do far more damage with a smashed bottle than a small knife, but nobody is stopping pax taking bottles of duty free on board.

I believe that most airline security is pretty damned good - but, it is important to the powers that be that they give every appearance of being OTT. It's just a bloody nuisance. Maybe LHR could employ some out of work actors, dress a few in airline uniforms, and they can regularly get subjected to very public scrutiny to give this appearance, and save the rest of us.

G

Cripple 7

14th Jan 2006, 13:31

Back in the 70s, a China Airlines 742F (owned by the Taiwanese government) was hijacked by the captain to mainland China. He handcuffed the F/O and locked the F/E out of the cockpit. He didn't need any weapons to do it.

spannersatcx

14th Jan 2006, 13:39

SCREEN everybody NO exceptions

They do, I've been waiting to go through the metal detector when the previous person has been a security person relieving the person currently doing the checks. He goes beep and gets search.
:D

From reading this thread it seems that those that sit up front seem to be the only ones that have a problem with this.:eek:

As far as I know the only exemptions (that I have seen) are Customs.:confused:

Beausoleil

14th Jan 2006, 15:53

Golf Charlie Charlie

14th Jan 2006, 15:59

Suppose the only point of searching aircrew was to make passengers object less when they are searched ("see, even the captain has to go through this").
Or suppose the whole security thing was an elaborate farce to create the illusion of safety so that people would keep buying tickets in enough quantities to keep airlines in business and, indirectly, aircrew in jobs.
Wouldn't those be good enough reasons?
[back to lurking]

So what are we supposed to do ? Just dismantle all the security gates and systems at airports ? I agree, much of airport security/screening is in practical terms ineffective, but the absence of it would be an invitation. We are where we are today through a series of incremental steps, each of which was thought to be well-intentioned. As the Irishman said when asked the way to Dublin, you don't start from here.

Captain Airclues

14th Jan 2006, 16:31

I have no objection to being searched and going through the same system as the passengers. However, sometimes the lack of common sense can be amusing.
This morning I departed from Frankfurt and had a small (10mm) ring spanner that I had used to fix my roof rack and had forgotten that it was in my briefcase. After an admonishment by a police officer, the spanner was confiscated. However, the gift shop, which is after the security post sells vanity sets containing scissors of about the same size as my spanner.

Airclues

P.S. Does anyone have a spare 10mm ring spanner? :)

boofhead

14th Jan 2006, 19:10

Whether the airport security is applied to crew or passengers, it begs the question of how effective such security is. It is my opinion that there is no such thing as airport security and it can never be achieved. The bad guys are always going to be able to see the holes and opportunities; we will always be one step or more behind. Airport security did not fail on 9/11, remember, and all the steps taken since would not have prevented the attacks on that date. Concentrating on the stupid, which is what is being done now, prevents a more watchful, aware stance being taken, and provides opportunities for the terrorist. We are less safe now than pre 9/11. Do I need to repeat that? We are LESS SAFE now.

Of course some places get it right, but in general in the politically correct Western nations, the appearance trumps effectiveness. Take a step back some time and just watch the security in action. Every person there has a job to do and he/she does it to the exclusion of anything going on around him. You could put a Bin Liner lookalike, with machine guns and grenades, in the security line and he would not be noticed until the idiot whose job it is to put the stuff on the belt saw him, or, more likely, until the idiot whose job it is to watch the Xray monitor sees the images of the weapons (or the software picked it up and sounded the alert). Nobody is prepared to see anything other than what they see on a regular basis, and nobody is prepared to react even if they did see anything. Moronic automatons is all they are. Look at the shooting incident in LAX for proof. We hear about bad guys getting onto airplanes, but do we ever hear about them being stopped and apprehended at the security checkpoint?

Proof? Look around to see what response is available in the unlikely event that airport security flushes a terrorist in the security conga line (never has happened and will never happen either). There is usually only one policeman with a 9mm, and even if there was a SWAT team, how could they take down a couple of armed terrorists, prepared to die for their cause, amongst the hundreds of screaming, panicked passengers? In other words the authorities know that what they are doing is bs; why are so many otherwise intelligent people taken in by it?

In order to make us safer in the air, we need to put our attention toward airplane security, and let airport security revert to the previous level. All the security at the airport will not help one bit when confronted with the airborne hijacker or terrorist.

On larger airplanes, closing the flight deck door and not opening it under any threat conditions is all that is required. In the event of an attack in the cabin, cut off communications with them (so you cannot be pressured by threats) and land immediately. Do not allow any chance of a takeover of the airplane. On smaller airplanes without a door or cabin crew, learn how to immobilise people walking around or carry a weapon for protection. But forget airport security; they will not help you in any way, and obviously cannot do so once you are in the air in any case.

Anybody with a brain bigger than that of a garden snail knows it is all about Power and nothing to do with security.

Tarq57

14th Jan 2006, 22:30

Personally, as SLF, I don't mind the checks at all.The more thorough the better. Possibly like most people, I think if I've been checked thoroughly, then so will the Bad Guys.But they're not that well thought out, of course. They would probably act as a preventative to only the most dim witted extremist who is totally lacking in imagination, given the loopholes here and there. So I well understand aircrew irritation in this area.I don't see the point in confiscating potential lethal weapons, such as nail scissors, from the flight crew -or the pax, come to think of it - actually,I'd rather the crew were armed, since they have executive control over the aircraft.
The Silkair (and similar) events are relevant to this discussion only as a demonstration of that fact.

Read a letter in Flight a few years ago: the author, an ANZ capt., had come to the conclusion that if a 911 style event started to occur on his aircraft, he'd flip the seat belt switch on, wait a few seconds, stuff the nose full down, then up, then down etc and hope that disabled the offenders, without too much "collateral damage". Seems a pretty good approach. I want him flying my aircraft, thanks. And I dont mind if he's carrying scissors.

A few years ago someone tried to hijack an ANZ aircraft on the ground in Fiji. Hijacker was disabled by a well aimed blow by the captain, who had armed himself with a bottle of Teacher's whiskey (duty free of course). I'm not sure if the bottle survived the encounter.But it became world famous in NZ.

Few Cloudy

15th Jan 2006, 09:38

There is one fundamental thinking error through the whole topic:

If a pilot wants his plane wrecked and everybody dead, he doesn't need a knife or a gun to do it. He has the safety or otherwise of everybody on the plane in his hands - can run off the runway on T/O, hit short on landing, overstress the ship - as has been done by suicidal pilots in the past.

Nevertheless a security check makes sense - why? Because it can be, that someone smuggles a bomb into crew luggage or crew bags (this has been done too).

What should the screeners therefore be seeking in Crew effects? Devices which would destroy an aeroplane.

What should they not be seeking? Hand weapons, scissors and spanners!

The problem of the suicidal / extreme pilot - fortunately not a common one - is one which cannot be solved at the security check - but must be addressed throughout his career by the company.

It would be a big help if crews and security checkers alike perceived this and then can work together for security instead of getting up each others' noses.

FC.

Kaptin M

15th Jan 2006, 09:58

Perhaps this thread (which originated on another tiny website that is not allowed to be mentioned here) is best summed up by stating that a lot of the time, effort, and money directed to checking whether the cockpit crew are carrying nail clippers, or Swiss Army knives, would be far better spent on checking the more likely areas terrorists can easily penetrate....checked baggage, galley supplies, cleaning equipment, refuellers - the list of people, and things, that are permitted airside access with a more or less cursory check.

As Few Cloudy (and many of us previously) has stated, Tech crew could walk on naked, and still do the same damage as Muhammed Atta did on 911. But for the FACT that crew members are there to check OTHER crew members, in addition to checking themselves.
And prior to that, the regulatory authority and the approved medico will also have assessed the crews' mental, and physical, condition.

flyblue

15th Jan 2006, 10:35

Oh really, Kaptin M? Right, it's a topic never raised on pprune :rolleyes:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=201525&highlight=screeners
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=167088&highlight=screeners
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=79360&highlight=screeners
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=81514&highlight=screeners
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=75138&highlight=screeners
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=83567&highlight=screeners
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=76869&highlight=screeners
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1446&highlight=screeners
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2660&highlight=screeners
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=63465&highlight=screeners
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=829&highlight=screeners
Etc....

We really needed a tiny website to remind us of Security screening :ok:

Kaptin M

15th Jan 2006, 11:19

I don't recall stating this topic was never raised, flyblue - only that THIS thread (of 4 pages and >6,700 hits) owes its origin to a tiny website to which all reference has been deleted, despite the fact that any other PPRuNe newsworthy items acknowledge their roots.
Yes, I've strayed across to "there" - but I've still returned here, to PPRuNe.

banana9999

15th Jan 2006, 13:05

"see, even the captain has to go through this"

Even the captain!!!!!!

Wow!

Any objections I had as a "non-even the passenger that doesn't give a damn about who the captain is or how he is perceived" are now overcome.

:p

SLFguy

15th Jan 2006, 13:28

banana999......

I've read and re-read your last sentence over and over and now my head hurts.....

boofhead

15th Jan 2006, 17:52

I did not make my point, obviously. Markjoy and others should understand that airport security does NOT make you safer. It does NOTHING to stop a terrorist. Rarely does a terrorist use a real weapon to take over an airplane, they will use whatever is available and not banned by airport security; bottles, alcohol, small knives and razors etc, or use threats and devices such as tv remotes (a successful hijacking) and inhalers, or use nothing but their fists and a threatening attitude (Algeria).
You and all of us are going through that charade for NOTHING. It is a scam and the implied promise that if you allow yourself to be treated like a criminal you will be made safer is a disgraceful lie. The authorities should be held liable when their pathetic posturing is exposed, as it will be when the (fortunately very rare) next hijacking takes place despite them.

SLFguy

15th Jan 2006, 17:56

boof.....

er...why do think terrorists rarely use a weapon to take over an aircraft.....think about it...no really - have a long hard think about it...:sad:

judge11

15th Jan 2006, 19:12

boof....you are absolutely spot on with your assessment. Our problem is trying to get the idiots at places like the DoT (UK) to admit to the charade ('tho' I think they are so blinkered that they wouldn't or couldn't see the logic of your post) and have them apply affective but realistic and practical security measures.

G-DANM

15th Jan 2006, 21:08

As part of my degree I have been studying the security lessons learned from 9/11 and what changes could be made to prevent these occuring again. Alot of these security measures which have been introduced are not visible, for example federal marshalls aboard planes in the US and special branch screening of passenger manifests in the UK. Another change was the profiling of high priority individuals for screening. 9/11 was carried out by people in their middle ages, with qualifications and without a "background". This has posed problems for security as it considerably widens the possibilities for potential terrorists. I'm afraid if you think of yourselves (forget your occupation) you are all middle aged, with qualifications and obviously no "background". Therefore there is nothing to say if your not checked, that you may carry explosives or fire arms to give to someone else or to leave on the aircraft for someone on the return leg. Obviously some companies take this to the extreme removing nail files etc but thats life.

However, what has become evident are two main obvious questions which remain unanswered;
1) Why do airport owners (think about security alone here) encourage access to airport terminals and airports in general for the non-travelling public? Do these non-travellers really contribute significant revenue to the airports? In efforts to thwart attacks on airport customers it would be advantageous to exclude non-travelleing public from the airport. This helps to remove petty thiefs, potential terrorists and their intelligence gatherers. This creates a release of landside capacity allowing more businesses and more space for passengers. It is then possible to check people before they enter the airport and could then include all passengers and employees WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
2) The establishing of careers for frontline employees, means a lower turnover of staff and thus reduces the ease with which jobs can be obtained (i.e by news reporters). This means recruit people with academic qualifications, pay them a professional wage, value them as employees and provide career progression. This will improve staff moral and the quality of the job done. (Budget reform can easily allow this to happen) The expense of the higher wages is outweighed by the saving of re-training and re-hiring.

bjcc

15th Jan 2006, 22:23

boofhead

I'm afraid you are very wrong.

'Rarely does a terrorist use a real weapon to take over an airplane'

Obviously you don't remember the 70's. It may come as a suprise to many Americans, but terrorism has been about for a very long time. It did not start on 9/11.

Dawsons field? Enterbbe? Mogaditou? (excuse spelling!!!) None of those used real weapons? Oh yes they did!

Security in the US (having been through it long before 9/11) was a joke, and in no way compared to Europe, who had suffered from terrorist porblems for years.

Again, it may come as a suprise, but some of the items used on 9/11 would never have been allowed on a flight in Europe. However the US commonly allowed those items to be carried.

Quote:

"We hear about bad guys getting onto airplanes, but do we ever hear about them being stopped and apprehended at the security checkpoint?"

Yes we do, it was big news in the UK in the mid 80's, probably why it's not been tried since.

As for putting a Osi Bin Liner look alike in the queue and him being ignored? Well, yes, but the function is not the person it's what they are taking through.

I's been pointed out that there are reasons why crew are screened, if you don't wish to accept those, thats your affair. In the meantime, I'll feel a bit better if something is done, rather than nothing.

I do agree that whatever is done, nothing is 100%. But by having something in place it may deter an attack, and is infinatly better than nothing.

Topslide6

16th Jan 2006, 08:37

bjcc,

In the meantime, I'll feel a bit better if something is done, rather than nothing.

And the politicians wishing to be seen to be doing something can now rest easy. :rolleyes:

I's been pointed out that there are reasons why crew are screened, if you don't wish to accept those, thats your affair.

It's not really a case of not wishing to accept them and I rather think you're missing the point somewhat. As has already been said a thousand times, screening and in some cases the over the top groping of crews to prevent us taking a fork into the flight deck is utterly pointless. That's why crew get hacked off with it. It's a fruitless and pointless waste of our time. It seems that trust is now a dirty word.

Having control of the aircraft already, there is no need to set about one's self with cutlery. As much as some will protest this, the kind of screening we currently have is essentially a power trip for security guards trying to humiliate pilots in front of the travelling public thereby giving themselves some sort of elevated status. I have no objection to being searched but it would be nice, as with everything nowadays, to have just a touch of common sense employed at the same time.

arewenearlythereyet?

16th Jan 2006, 09:20

What the issue requires is good intelligence and that is, unfortunately, in short supply whether we are referring to government agencies or individuals employed to man the security checkpoints. The classic requirement for cosmetic application to cover the cracks is only to be expected from the mandarins who have to be seen to be doing something so that their political masters have a useful soundbite when the next scare is broadcast.

So far, no one has explained to me what is there to actually stop me or any other pilot or member of cabin crew from secreting the crash axe on our person and slipping back out to the departure lounge and handing that weapon over to someone with real malevolent intent who has already been screened? The system is seriously flawed and until the kind of investment that is required is forthcoming with intelligent profiling and more reliable biometric identification, we are going to continue with these silly debates. :hmm:

beaver eager

16th Jan 2006, 10:33

the kind of screening we currently have is essentially a power trip for the security guards to try and humiliate pilots in front of the travelling public thereby giving themselves some sort of elevated status.
Has anyone else noticed that when you are screened in a private area away from the passengers, there is a totally different air and a lot less hassle? Playing to the gallery, methinks!

no one has explained to me what is there to actually stop me or any other pilot or member of cabin crew from secreting the crash axe on our person and slipping back out to the departure lounge and handing that weapon over to someone with real malevolent intent who has already been screened
Good point!

Oh, for a lottery win and to leave it all behind.

Dylsexlic

16th Jan 2006, 11:59

Kaptin M got it right. QUOTE:
........is best summed up by stating that a lot of the time, effort, and money directed to checking whether the cockpit crew are carrying nail clippers, or Swiss Army knives, would be far better spent on checking the more likely areas terrorists can easily penetrate....checked baggage, galley supplies, cleaning equipment, refuellers - the list of people, and things, that are permitted airside access with a more or less cursory check. UNQUOTE

So many items in airport shops are sealed at the factory and cannot be penetrated by x-ray - anything in a tin, for example, so the opportunities for "feeding" similar objects into the system containing weapons to retrieve after the security checks are much more appealing even to dumb would-be hijackers.

I think the more serious problem of security checks is that many airports now require trouser (or pants) belts to be removed. The sight of manly beer bellies flobbing along outside the confines of a tight belt is too much to contemplate. How long will it be before human rights groups start campaigning for separate Male and Female security checks, including flight crew?

B Sousa

16th Jan 2006, 15:41

had a small (10mm) ring spanner that I had used to fix my roof rack and had forgotten that it was in my briefcase.

Another Dangerous Item confiscated. Just remember in France you cannot go through security with Caribiners on your hand luggage. Someone mentioned the reason for that is they may be used as "Brass Knuckles". First Moron to try that will break his "Knuckles".
On the PAX floor security is insane. In the Cargo floor there is none.......
Does not make me feel any better........
At Least I can now transport, new and unfueled Zippos in my checked baggage.. Someone found out the only way they can hurt anybody is if they get hit in the head with one. That does not apply to screeners.

boofhead

16th Jan 2006, 17:10

bjcc, you are reading what you want to read in my post.
Of course we need security, but it need not be any different from what it was prior to 9/11. That level was adequate to stop the major problems with guns, knives etc. However now, as then, only 75 percent of guns are being found according to TSA records, and only 40 percent of knives, so really, come on, what use is it? No matter how onerous the security is, they will not get them all and the terrorist only has to win one; we have to win them all! The ramp up in security is not working, it is not worth the extra effort, we are not getting value for our money, it should be rolled back to a more reasonable, acceptable level, since it has other detrimental effects on passenger confidence, crew patience and in fact the very survival of the industry. "Security" is a bigger problem now than the safety it was meant to provide.
In the 70s and 80s, yes, there were problems, but they were localised and in those countries, with obvious official support, guns and explosives were provided. The same can happen now, since the last way they would want to bring weapons on board would be through the passenger security lines. Come, on, think about it. Much more easy to bring them in as part of the airplane's kit via the back door, which is, despite some claims, porous and will remain so since examining every mechanic's tool box, or catering box etc, would shut down any major airport and there is no equipment for detecting explosives on the fly. In any case, we face different dangers now and need different ways to protect ourselves. Making crew and passengers criminals is NOT the way to do it. Pandering to the fearful is window dressing and that is all it is.
I accept that some places will need enhanced security, such as Israel, but all WE need is enough of an effort to thwart the dangers we practically face. I would be all for what is happening now, if it worked, but IT DOES NOT.
Thus, accept the fact that they WILL get on board, and lets put our efforts to where they should be focused: The airplanes.

ETOPS

16th Jan 2006, 17:14

Passed through BOS yesterday. Took off my uniform jacket as requested and walked through the arch as usual. Pretty lady waiting at the other side put her hand up and said "Stop - where's you ID?" "On my jacket " I replied. "Go back and get it!" She shouted, but by then it (and my flight case) had appeared at the end of the scanner so I pointed that out to her. She did the human equivalent of a computer lock-up and seemed unable to speak so I just pushed past her.........

Few Cloudy

16th Jan 2006, 17:35

Actually there is an occasion where a bunch of terrorists got found out while passing security - in Athens.

They then went ape****, got out all their machine guns etc. and proceeded to have a blood bath of all in the vicinity.

(This included a Swissair crew passing through by the way. The Captain was off sick for some considerable time getting his leg fixed and was none too happy when Swissair informed him that he would be loosing a couple of weeks holiday due to being sick for too long...)

FC.

Ron & Edna Johns

16th Jan 2006, 23:34

Since when was there a requirement to be wearing an ID when going through a PUBLIC screening point? Or when walking from that screening point to the aerobridge/gate? Airline IDs are for use in the AIRSIDE secure areas, ie, beyond the aerobridge, out on the tarmac, etc, and... arguably... when entering the the flight-deck.

Then again, why is it nobody ever checks the names on the IDs against an operating crew list prior to allowing them access to the aerobridge? That way you know that the bloke walking to the flightdeck is actually the bloke approved to take control of it! But no - far better to just confiscate his knitting needles in front of the public - THAT'LL fix the security problem.

Arrived on board a few days ago - half a dozen cleaners or caterers just sitting in J-Class, waiting for something (aircraft had been towed from domestic terminal to international). NOT ONE OF THESE PEOPLE HAD BEEN SCREENED EVEN ONCE DURING THE DAY. Brisbane International Airport, people. Any of them could have secreted something at one of those seats. (hypothetical, hushed, mobile phone conversation: "Which seat number did you get allocated?.... Ok.... No worries.... will leave the knife under that seat's cushion").

And no one seems to care, four years on from Sep 11.

No wonder there is no respect for security in Australia.

blueplume

17th Jan 2006, 17:43

As I am constantly reminding security: if I want kill everybody I just aim for the ground. Nobody's going to wait for me to attack them with my nail clippers. Some (not all) security people haven't realized why they are doing the job: because they can't do anything else. When you act like an unintelligent jobsworth you will find yourself in conflict situations with other people.

bjcc

17th Jan 2006, 18:24

Boofhead

It was difficult to read anything else into your post.

I don't know what the TSA's stats are, and indeed how they arrive at them. I believe, that Europe has a much better record.

The problems of the 70's & 80's was not confined to 'there were problems, but they were localised and in those countries, with obvious official support, guns and explosives were provided. '

It was tried and failed in the UK. Our Goverments may have be guilty of many things but certainly not providing offical support!

The aircraft in the examples I used did not originate in countries that supply support for terrorists either.

On your point concerning the TSA, some (although not all) of the items used would not have been allowed on a flight in the US, had there been adequate security. Most would not have been allowed on one originating in the UK, where the security, if not perfect, is a bloody sight better!

You say

'The same can happen now, since the last way they would want to bring weapons on board would be through the passenger security lines.'

Which is the point of the excerise, to stop things being brought in that way.

It also stops crew carring items they don't know the contents of (yes, it does happen!)

You claim that the searches don't work? Really? How many hijacks before 9/11? How many since?

I do agree that a route in is via the back door. But I would suggest thats a failing in the American (and apparently Australian) way of doing it. Although inconvienent, certainly LHR manages to rumage through tool kits caterring vans etc.

boofhead

19th Jan 2006, 03:29

I know we need security, even if it is only to stop the loonies, but if you believe the authorities, they are the only reason we are not having airplanes taken over every day, so "if you give up your freedoms and rights we will protect you". That is simply not true, since terrorists and hijackers are rare. Even more so in places like the US and Europe. A good security system would identify the problems and take action to stop criminal activity, rather than assume everyone who wants to travel is a criminal and treat them as such. There were plenty of opportunities to stop the 9/11 hijackers, well short of the airport; none were taken.
I don’t know about you, but I do not like being treated that way, having to take off my shoes, take my computer and video camera out for handling by idiots, not being able to do flying training in the US on a layover, showing ID whenever I check in, or go through security, unable to fly to the US without 24 hours notice, not be able to accompany my family through security to the Gate if I am not also flying with them, have my wife on the flight deck, etc etc, all things I was able to do until the hysteria set in, Hysteria driven by fear, by cowardice, and fear encouraged by the authorities in order to maintain control over us, and therefore gain Power. I am not a criminal, I had rights until the cowards took them away. I should not be subject to searches without reasonable cause, I should not have to show ID just to enter an airport, nor disrobe and be subject to random pat-downs. You might think it a good trade, but then you believe the bs they are feeding you. I remember that the people doing the telling are politicians and therefore are liars. The US pres said he can anything he wants, and he is probably right; what will you do if he says we have to be handcuffed to the seat when we fly? Or wear only an apron issued by the airline so they can see we are unarmed? We have already shown we will bend over on command, when we give up our rights even a little bit we have told them we will give them all up.
It is nothing to do with security since no matter how good it is, it cannot stop a determined hijacker or terrorist, and if you believe it protects you I don’t know what to say; you are either ignorant or afraid and need the assurance, however hollow, of your government that they will make you safe. When the bad guys pull out the ceramic knives, the bottles with alcohol or simply broken bottles, or, through force of their willpower, take control of the airplane you are traveling on, it will do you no good to then realize that the security of the airport has nothing to do with the security of the airplane.
There were not many attacks on airplanes before 9/11, it had been thirty years or more since an attack was made in the US, and even though 9/11 was horrific, it was isolated and in relative terms only a blip in a good record. It took years to plan and it could have been stopped at any time using the intelligence available to the authorities in the US and Europe. Relying on airport security to protect the traveling public is stupid. We have to be successful every time, while “they” only have to be successful once.
Employing a huge security army to harass honest people simply because they want to fly is a waste of assets, and I know we don’t have a secret staff of security personnel in the wings doing the real job. What we see is what we get, and they concentrate on things, not people. It is the intent that needs to be identified, and those who present a threat should be given the full treatment. With the airport security staff totally involved with minutiae and unable to see past the blinders they are forced to wear, with PC correctness forcing them to waste time searching old ladies and aircrew, putting people like Ted Kennedy onto a watch list simply because he shares a name with a suspected terrorist, etc, it prevents a proper watch being maintained, and real protection being developed.
It is not things (guns, knives) that hijack airplanes, it is persons with a determination to do so. They will use whatever is available, and taking small knives, scissors, leatherman tools and so on from aircrew or passengers merely ensures that the only persons armed on board will be the bad guys. Richard Reed, flying from a UK airport, managed to bring explosives on board (I doubt that this was as bad as it was reported, since the shoes failed to even burn, much less explode) and it shows that airport security cannot catch unconventional weapons any better than they can guns and knives (he was stopped the first time, not because of his shoes, but because he triggered extra attention due to profiling, something illegal in the US). It also shows that the attack was thwarted in the air, on the airplane, and by crew and passengers, not by airport security.
Stop guns, explosives and knives, of course, and on 9/11 this was done. The hijack teams on that occasion were successful only because the crew and passengers, acting in accordance with the FAA training of the time, allowed them access to the flight deck. Once they had that, boxcutters were enough. Boxcutters were allowed then, and can easily be taken on board even now despite airport security. It is not important what they have, there is no reason for us to let them get onto the flight deck. We can protect ourselves and will do so now we know the need. It took the FAA two years to agree, but most aircrew know this by now.
In places where the threat of armed hijackers is greater, the authorities must of course ramp up airport security, with armed guards and a willingness to shoot first. But if there is no direct threat, make the airport security appropriate to the risk. Use the resources wisely. Stop making me a criminal.

bjcc

19th Jan 2006, 05:35

Boofhead

Yes, the shoe bomber was big news here. Although, he went through a French, not UK airport.

I agree he was stopped on the aircraft. Because, as you have said previously, they are always one step ahead, security won't stop everything every time. Rather than as you now say, trying is just that, not an attempt at 'control'.

To counter what you have said, the last time someone with explosives was found by security at a UK airport, was entirely innocent. She was carring a bag given to her by her boyfirend. It contained a bomb, she knew nothing at all of.

So, profilling would have stopped nothing at all there.

So crew are more sensible than that? Most yes, all, no. To my knowladge crew have carried packages that they didn't know the contents of.

I am not sure what you are proposing as an alternative, but although the current system is not perfect, and never can be unless it is taken to extreems, what do you suggest?

I am sure you see it as

GULF69

19th Jan 2006, 11:20

GULF69

19th Jan 2006, 12:00

At FACT / CPT, when a private flight lands it has to stop at the main terminal first to clear customs / immigration - ok nothing out of the ordinary. Pax + crew has to then be cleared through customs/immigration (and all the security protocol that goes with it) and proceed through to LANDSIDE. The crew then have to be driven landside to the opposite side of the airfield (there is only one gate for vehicles leading airside/landside) where they have to go through security again in order for them to get to their aircraft! As most of you know, you are not supposed to have the APU running without a crew member being there, which means that on most private jets (2 pilots + 1 hostie) the process have to be done twice as one crew member has to remain at the aircraft until his colleague arrives!

The DEPARTURE however, is where another headache comes in. Technically the GA area is OUTSIDE the national key point, so once the crew arrive at the hangars they ready the aircraft and taxi to the main terminal. Then they have to be fetched airside, driven to the other side of the airfield where they have to go through security (including going through metal detectors, being searched and their bags scanned). They then have to be driven back up to the international terminal landside, located once again on the opposite side of the airfield. Once they arrive there, they have to walk through the terminal (normal channels), go through security again, again be searched and screened and only then can they get to their aircraft.... can you comprehend such stupidity? I mean if any crew member (or even passenger) is going to smuggle anything into or out of the country they would just keep it on the aircraft - they NEVER check onboard the airplanes.

WELCOME TO AFRICA

69

Chimbu chuckles

19th Jan 2006, 14:37

Recently I was operating crew LHR-DXB-etc. At the security gate our crew bus stopped while a large catering style truck went through the secure area, one out one in as usual. I watched as the driver was wanded and patted down and then got back in his truck and continued on...the truck was not searched at all...not even a mirror on a stick passed underneath for a quick look...nothing, NADA!!! Enough nasty stuff for 50 hikackings could have been on that truck.

We then proceeded through and my collegue was asked to remove his laptop for individual screening. He asked why and was told it's policy, very important blah blah....they didn't even seem to notice the laptop, charger etc in my navbag.:hmm:

36 hrs later we pitch up at the second 'crew' screening point at DXB (having already passed through the public one) and find that the morons running it have the sensitivity so high that it is essentially beeping continuously. Four of my fellow crewmembers went through ahead of me...all ended up with shoes off, belts off etc etc etc....I think they actually got through in the end by fluke...they walked through the stupid thing between beeps! Seeing this I double checked for nothing in my pockets etc...this particular screening machine is nearly always oversensitive...nothing...watch off, reading glasses etc etc all in the little tray going through the xray machine.

I stood back several feet letting the machine settle down...it beaped 5 times while I was standing there...the only person closer was the screener. "Your machine is broken" No, no pass through. Of course it beeped and I was also required to undress for 4 more passes through...jagging a no beep on the last one.

Airport security is one of the sickest jokes being foisted on the travelling public. I would bet money 'lost' on all this BS is greater than the combined loss caused by the 911 attacks...the terrorists must just be rolling on the ground laughing...the threat of terrorism is infinitely greater than the reality...all they have to do for the foreseeable future is have a satphone conversation between one cave and another discussing their next 'attack' and watch the security beaurocrisy go into overdrive with 'credible' threats. No need to go to massive expense and risk by hijaking an actual aeroplane...just fantasize about it in an email or three and a couple of satphone chats and keep the west quivering in fear and anticipation.

As a tactic 911 was genius. The war on terror cannot be won the way GWB is fighting it...for the exact same reasons Nixon couldn't win in Vietnam. The ONLY way to beat the North Vietnamese was bombing the place back to the stone age..literally...kill every man women and child capable of pulling a trigger...target the schools so no-one lives to be old enough to fight....clearly NOT something that the 'west' is capable of in our 'enlightened' age....so we are fighting with one hand tied behind our backs...unlike our enemy.

What's the answer?

it aint airport security that's for sure...the very best that can be done to avoid another hijack is in place...bullet proof doors and a plane load of potential vigilantees ready to kick the living ****e out of anyone who dares **** with them and their travel plans.

Bush, Blair etc said after 911.."Go on about your lives as if nothing has happened..be unafraid or the terrorists have won"

Well we would if you morons would let us!!!!!

Ron & Edna Johns

19th Jan 2006, 22:21

boofhead and chimbu: you are both totally spot on. Couldn't have said it better.

And chimbu: today we have exactly the sort of thing you are talking about: a "new tape from bin Laden" has been reported in the media. On it, someone allegedly says the reason there haven't been any further 9/11-type attacks is not becasue of security the West has put in place, but rather, because there "are operations that need preparation".

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17879722-401,00.html

So, either:

(1) the "terrorists" are just stirring the pot, poking the ants nest to get the western bureacracy further worked up into another lather of panic; or

(2) our governments, via media, are just telling us that the "terrorists" are saying this, for the governments' ulterior purposes.

I no longer trust any of these.... people.... running our societies.

NO TERRORIST GROUP IS SERIOUSLY GOING TO MAKE SUCH PROVOCATIVE STATEMENTS IF THEY GENUINELY WANT TO SUCCEED WITH SOME FUTURE ATTACK.

Think about that statement and the implications that follow.

And think about what a cowardly society we have become.

Future historians will shake their heads in bewilderment at what western society became in the 21st century.

paulo

19th Jan 2006, 23:10

to me the most hilarious, is that they dont allow you to take something stupid like nail clippers onto a aircraft, however on some airlines they give your steel knives and forks - go figure.......
69

I figure that they determine a policy for the airport, rather than adopt the weakest possible policy based on what various airlines give passengers. If Air Weird wants to give people machetes, that doesn't mean it is alright to let machetes through. I'm exaggerating to make a point, but you see what I mean.

GULF69

20th Jan 2006, 05:43

Quite true Paulo!

69

PhilM

20th Jan 2006, 11:48

One of the things that puzzled me briefly when I started out as an engineer coming up a year ago;

Passing through security I was stopped and b0llocked for having a knife and fork in my bag (quiet openly), along with my microwave dinner. So that was taken off me. Yet, I was allowed to pass with my Leatherman, with a 4inch blade that I have on numerous occasions been lucky to have only taken small chunks of my hand off with :{, but my very old and blunt knife and fork, not allowed!

No common sense applied to security at all is there :confused:

Dehavillanddriver

20th Jan 2006, 17:55

It seems to me that we spend kazillions on airport security, keeping pilots away from aeroplanes but letting unchecked catering trucks through etc BUT we allow tens of thousands to die on our roads, ten of thousands to die of heart disease and malnutrition, tens of thousands die from other preventable diseases.

Why? because it is not politically "sexy" to fix those things up.

If they devoted some of the money that is spent daily on airport and aircraft security on the things listed above casualty rates on aeroplanes would not change and the world as a whole would be far better off.

THAT is the way to stuff up the terrorists - they don't want a better world, they want a world created in their own warped image - stuff em up by making the world a better place and let us do our jobs - it just is too hard these days!

derekl

20th Jan 2006, 20:10

This is an interesting thread which has demonstrated to me that many flight crew have a deep understanding of security issues. Very welcome. It's a pity that they are not allowed more influence over the laws and rules that are applied. Airport security would be less expensive, less mindless and much more effective if they were allowed that influence.

May I recommend a book by one of the world's foremost security experts, Bruce Schneier, which covers many of these issues with brilliant clarity.

It's called Beyond Fear --Thinking sensibly about security in an uncertain world.

ISBN: 0-387-02620-7

issi noho

20th Jan 2006, 20:33

Not strictly on the subject but

Flybe are doubling carry-on allowance and charging for hold bags to encourage pax to carry on more as a cost/time saving excercise, surely doubling chances of would-be terrorist getting something thru. Increases queues at Deps. If extra security staff are recruited to deal with queue this affectively shares Flybe's security costs with every other airline and airport user who ultimately pay for airport security. Great idea:uhoh: :confused:

Justin Ryan

20th Jan 2006, 22:03

Hi everyone.
I am in my last year at uni waiting to start pilot training but I have been working on Security at a major airport for the last 4 years. I must agree a lot of the security seems like utter nonsense from a flight crew’s point of view. I can see where what you mean and agree, a lot of it is utter nonsense. However, you have to look at the bigger picture. Most security agents (there are the odd one or two) are not out to get Mr Pilot to make themselves feel big and powerful, they are merely doing their jobs and tend to have up most respect for pilots so if you do not agree with the system, please do not argue with security, he probably feels the same way as you do.
A few things I have leant along the way, security is not about making sure every passenger and every bag is 100% guaranteed to be secure, that would be impractical. It is about creating a deterrent. Ok there are holes in the system, but as long as they only appear randomly then the security remains intact as Mr terrorist doesn't know where the holes are. Also, security has to be seen to be checking everyone as they never know who’s testing the system, even someone appearing to be a pilot could be a test of security in disguise.

madtrap

21st Jan 2006, 00:56

Not unreasonable logic Mr. Ryan, but the comments contained here and in numerous previous strings about flagrant, unreasonable and frivolous abuse of power undermine a lot of sincere efforts out there. Few security wonks have your education or espoused sense of purpose. In some large western superpower states (no names, no pack drill), the efforts are so predictably focused, not to mention bound by political correctness, as to undermine your point about randomness, as well as efficacy.
Having addressed the issues you have, now please tackle the one about why pilots are given the treatment at all. Once in the flight deck, pilots have control of the weapon. That punctuation device preceding this sentence is a period.
The earlier proposal by Ron and?or Edna Johns about verifying individuals against operating crew lists would do more to eliminate access confusion than all the checks visited on flight crew by one-dimensional screening. Flight dispatch/crew sched could deal with last minute drafts. (Not to mention the glaring obviousness of an unqualified person in the crew group, as mentioned in an earlier posting)
I discussed the screening issue with a very senior security person a couple years ago, asking why small Swiss Army penknives, specifically, were banned. He told me that somebody could take it away from the pilot and attack him with it. (He had already glaringly ignored the minor issue of the flight deck fire axe, but I figured what the hell, how often does one get the chance to light the meadow on fire?) After manoeuvring around the bit about how they'd know where it is (flight bag, which pocket, if he/she has one) I asked, "How would the miscreant get it away from the pilot?".
"Well they could use karate or something!"
"Then they wouldn't need the $%^@#& penknife, would they now?"
Stony silence. I decided not to tell him about an Israeli test pilot who told me that one of their security types (the highly qualified, trained and deadly ones who come along for the ride) told buddy that he could slit a throat handily with a credit card. (yes, yes, apocryphal, but guess where my money is?)
I think I'm on the list of those who've ratted out the emperor's corrupt tailors. I've been put through special hoops on more than one occasion. It’s the raised eyebrows from the pass list checkers that has me suspicious.
When all of this is packaged with truly appalling airside security for groomers, cleaners and lord knows who, you’ll never overcome the cynicism there amigo until some common sense prevails, and is seen to prevail.
Cynicism after all is environmental, not genetic.

amanoffewwords

21st Jan 2006, 08:13

[Couldn't find a smilie of someone gone fishing!] ;)

There you go!

http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/character/character0053.gif

Mac the Knife

21st Jan 2006, 08:33

One of the most hilarious was when I was stopped a couple of years ago for a pair of microscissors for microsurgery - the blades are about 5 millimeters (mm) long.....

No explanations would suffice, they had to go in my hold luggage. By the time I'd retrieved my bag and stowed the microscissors I'd missed the flight.

Dunno who I was supposed to threaten with those!

Ah well....

JamesA

21st Jan 2006, 09:51

Airslide
You and an earlier contributor beat me to it - The chance for the lesser paid/educated to show their 'authority'. Give someone three bucks an hour and tell them they are in charge of the nation's security and watch when the smart uniforms with lots of gold/silver turn up.

My own most ridiculous story - Doing military charters, sometimes we carry a courier. Going through security, the man handfs over his sidearm to security staff. Passes through arch, bell goes off, side arm is returned and frisk is carried out. A nail file is taken from courier. We all stand around in amazement squared. Moral of story - guns are OK, but it is not done to have manicured nails. Of course this was in land of George Dubaya, leader of ......

Beausoleil

21st Jan 2006, 11:13

My own most ridiculous story - Doing military charters, sometimes we carry a courier. Going through security, the man handfs over his sidearm to security staff. Passes through arch, bell goes off, side arm is returned and frisk is carried out. A nail file is taken from courier. We all stand around in amazement squared. Moral of story - guns are OK, but it is not done to have manicured nails. Of course this was in land of George Dubaya, leader of ......

I don't post much in this forum, but I think self-loading freight have as much at stake in this as pilots.

Whether a nailfile is a weapon is specified by the state - you can't hold the individual doing the search responsible for that. They aren't supposed to make judgement calls, they are supposed to follow rules. One place I've worked the rule is that they shoot you if you don't stop within three paces of the checkpoint on request. Try the "I don't see why this rule should apply to me" routine on them - they just don't care whether you see why the rule applies to you, nor should they.

The man was accountable for what happened to his gun. If he turned up without it at the other end it would be obvious where hijackers got their gun from (had there been a hijack from that airport).

But if he was carrying a concealed weapon in addition to his gun, he could pass it on to somebody else airside who could use it to hijack a different plane, and nobody would know he'd done it. That's why the policy is for him to be searched. That's why pilots have to be searched too - otherwise they could carry weapons for people to use on other planes.

The reason security staff don't have discretion and are expected to follow rules is amply demonstrated by this thread. Even the comparatively well educated correspondents here exhibit a dangerous failure of imagination in what constitutes a threat. People have thought long and hard constructing security policies. They may be wrong, but there haven't been decent arguments against their decisions here. If ait=rcrew had the last word, aircrew would be exempt from search and we would all be less safe.

Mac the Knife

21st Jan 2006, 11:28

"If ait=rcrew had the last word, aircrew would be exempt from search and we would all be less safe."

Please explain why we'd be less safe. I can't get my head round the logic of "disarming" the very crew who will be flying the aircraft.

Are they likely to attack themselves? If a baddie has got into the RHS then he can deck the captain with any number of nasty things in the cockpit. If the PIC is a baddie then he/she can do anything they like.

I don't understand.

Dualbleed

21st Jan 2006, 11:29

[QUOTE=Beausoleil] They aren't supposed to make judgement calls, QUOTE]

Which is good, because most do not have the mental capacity to do it.

Justin Ryan

22nd Jan 2006, 07:27

I suppose searching flight crew is pointless really. An ID check would suffice. Personally I do not deal with searching flight crew as I work on security for individual US bound aircraft. We only have to check IDs of flight crew against a list. I'd imagine flight crew are searched just to shut up the 20,000 passengers a day who'd say, "Why am I getting searched and they are getting through?"
I've always found that the rules for confiscating items changes by the day. One of our airlines decided 'Ok right, lighters... are allowed. Actually no they're not allowed. Err... yes no yes no... Ok they can take lighters but only one.' Would you believe that!! The other daft one I find is that a broken mirror is not allowed, but an intact mirror is allowed. Anyone else see a flaw in that...?

Mac the Knife

22nd Jan 2006, 08:02

".....an unscreened item (e.g penknife) might fall out of a pocket or bag & be picked up by a hardened terrorist...."

Yup, I've seen 'em - hanging around crew transit areas flight after flight, hoping.....just hoping......"I know that One Day My Penknife Will Come" :p

I suppose that they've "won" really - disrupted an entire industry, cost nations millions of $$$, annoyed and discomfited uncounted numbers of people, created sympathy for their cause, increased the love of Islam in the world.....:(

Bit of a Phyrric victory methinks - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory

****, this stripping out of <CR> in Preview is starting to annoy me!

Miserlou

22nd Jan 2006, 23:05

I liked the way one helped me empty my pockets of mobile phone, lighter and car keys from my jacket pockets to go through the X-ray machine and then asked me to put my jacket through the machine. They couldnt explain why the items couldn't have stayed in my pockets but tried to argue that the machine 'could see better' when the items where not in my jacket. I laughed out loud.

xetroV

23rd Jan 2006, 07:23

If ait=rcrew had the last word, aircrew would be exempt from search and we would all be less safe.
The very fact that someone actually believes this nonsence is proof that window dressing can indeed be succesful. (Or maybe it just proves that common sense has really become a thing of the past.)

Kaptin M

23rd Jan 2006, 11:11

"Things said in jest...."

On a recent video sent to me I saw the comedian espouse the uselessness of these security checks.
Instead, as each passenger passes through, give him/her a baseball bat..and THEN let the furkin terrorist(s) make a move.
KERRRBLAMOoo.

Security are now about 5 years behind Al Quaeda, if they think - in light of the strengthened cockpit doors, and their coded access that requires confirmation from the flight deck, to permit entry - that aircraft hijackings are on the agenda.

Assuming the ridiculous for one minute, that 99% of aircraft passengers are hijacking terrorists, and that the 99% manage to to get their concealed weapons/bombs past security and onto an aircraft. UNLESS they can gain access to the flight deck - which they will NOT be able to - their mission will be fruitless.

Assuming 1 of the cockpit crew is a terrorist...that being the case, s/he won't require a weapon to render the other crew member useless.

If BOTH crew members are terrorists, then they won't need carry weapons, as they be working in unison.

I got quite p!ssed off a couple of days ago, when my F/O was forced to walk through the security scanner 3 times - twice with his shoes off - and even then, given a full body feel (which he admitted to enjoying, as the "feeler" was an attractive 20-something year old, nubile nymph).

The "joke" is, this guy is the Japanese kick-boxing [Muay Thai] champion in his class in Japan!

NWT

23rd Jan 2006, 14:47

See the latest joke at LHR and LGW is that for ground staff, they are not allowed to wear metal capped safety shoes. The BAA have said that it is to stop the alarm going off, and prevent injury to the security staff due to having to bend down when 'patting down' the 'offending' staff member. Poor little luvies, musn't let them bend down...oh and if you wear a belt it must be undone so they can feel around it OK !!! Cant wait to see a big 'large' person go through, have to undo his belt, have his (or her) trousers start to fall, go to hold them up, get told off as their arms arn't outstreatched!

hapzim

23rd Jan 2006, 16:02

Yet they still don't use a wand to find out what went bleep. They may have found the non metalic nail clipers or emery board left in a pocket, but that machien went bleep, that's why you searched me, not as one of your additional random pat downs, which should be done when the machine stays quiet.

This is what makes it a farce.:eek:

ALLDAYDELI

25th Jan 2006, 08:22

BA website now mentions advice to customers that "due to increased BAA LGW/LHR security" people must now remove their belts prior to passing through the screener. It also says that laptops must be removed from their bags/cases.
When did all this come in then?

More changes and measures being introduced at BAA. I wonder how many more?

CherokeeDriver

25th Jan 2006, 09:37

Travelling through Turin last week I got my Gilette Mach 3 razor blades taken from me by security. Not a big problem as I bought a new pack in the airside shop to replace them. Good job Turin Airport isn't going to be used for the 2006 Winter Olympics or anything......:mad:

offa

25th Jan 2006, 11:26

... but it's not about security - it's about humiliation and it's MUCH more fun getting at someone in uniform than your average man in the street.
Quite why you would want to attack somebody with a laptop or nailcilppers when you are about to fly 400 tons over the densest populated real estate in the world I don't know?
(I just paxed through LGW with my JBL Creature II in a black canvas bag complete with transformer; associated wiring weird shaped woofers etc.. and no query at all. Maybe I should try it in uniform next time?)

trotts

25th Jan 2006, 11:47

Hi All,
Love this, and wonder if the following might shed any light on the beloved TSA policies:

A long time ago I was on an RAF detachment in Keflavik, which is admittedly a fairly high security base. I landed in my jet and was walking in towards the facilities when I realised my gloves were still in the cockpit. Having said high to the USAF guard and chatted briefly in good nature about how much it must suck to stand stag beside a line of aircraft at -30c you might imagine how surprised I was when I turned around and went to walk back towards the jet, only to be looking down the barrel of his rifle.

"Don't cross the line, Sir" he said.

I laughed and said "Just gonna get my gloves"

"Don't cross the line, Sir" he said.

"But i need to get back to the aircraft, you've just seen me leave it"

"Sir, if you walk on I will open fire"

Thing is, I had crossd the painted red dividing line, and he was under orders not to let anyone cross it towards the aircraft without an escort. So I had to walk all the way in to the C building, get an escort and be driven back out to my jet again. When I did so the guard was nice as pie.

Now, I understand that the guard was only following his orders. Fair enough, but I was told by one of their Aircrew that the guards life is simple and leave's no room for interpretation, and that I was lucky to get a second warning; they have an intelligence test, and if they pass it they can't be guards.

I wonder whether the NSA target these experienced personnel for recruitment when they leave the Armed Forces?

Trotts

AtoBsafely

25th Jan 2006, 12:20

Dear Capt M,
Please feel sorry for those gaijin on the blue team. In Osaka WE have to cross security twice to get to our aircraft, and then get checked again to get from the aircraft back to the office. At least the girl who does the pat down is cute!!
The Rest of the World,
The Japanese are just catching up to the upgrades in security that North America went through in 2002 (I can't speak of elsewhere), except that they are doing it the Japanese way. So.... even our Bento (lunch) boxes are scanned now, but meanwhile there are gaping holes you could drive a truck through.
We have to live with security, and (inevitably?) it will be applied by people with minimal training. However, it would be nice if someone would think about the system they were setting up and at least close the obvious gaps.
I just hope that the security we have keeps the people we don't want out of the system. Ganbatte!

QF Quoll

25th Jan 2006, 12:29

Don't worry the cost will finally win the day. Rules are for fools and a guide to wise men ........ exclude the U.S. ;)

PENKO

25th Jan 2006, 13:58

banana9999

25th Jan 2006, 15:50

How hard can it be?
Just play the game gentlemen.
There are crazier things going on in aviation than just walking through a metal detector.
If a pax uses his mobile phone on board, we pilots are all ready to crucify him.
Why? No one knows for sure. But we sure like to give'm hell for not following the rules. (Apparently we are as much as a jobsworth as a 'lower paid' baggage screener!!)
Excellent post PENKO.

Next thing is that some of the more reactionary fellows on here will be wanting "journos" to run a story about how bad it all is. :D

Get some perspective folks :p

MD11Engineer

26th Jan 2006, 10:22

As an LAME I often work at different airports within Germany. I noticed that the interpretation of the new EU security rules varies with the different states (as in Germany police and security is a state, not a federal matter).
E.g. in one airport I've got to identify myself with an electronic fingerprint (no chance of another person using my badge, if the fingerprint doesn't match the badge the door won't open), but there is no physical search.
At another airport everybody who enters the "critical area" (passenger ramp, pax waiting rooms, baggage sorting rooms, everywhere where searched pax and their baggage is present), we need to get patted down in front of the passengers, which is especially funny if you carry your normal hardware (Leatherman tool, pocket knife, screw drivers etc.) in your pocket, followed by the stupid questions if I need the tools to do my job. Or the incredible look in face of the security agent when I pushed my toolbox (full of heavy, sharp or pointed bits of metal) through the x-ray scanner.
We get searched at least 5-6 times every day. On the other hand this airport has security holes you could drive a truck through.
I think the whole thing is about politics and "perceived security", to make the punters feel well and the politicos to show that they are doing something.
Like e.g. declaring the area around the government buildings in Berlin a no-fly zone (it is just about two flying minutes north of THF). They even wanted the Luftwaffe to base Hawk missiles around there, until a military officer explained to the politicians what would happen if they started launching AA missiles in the middle of a city.

Jan

nike

26th Jan 2006, 11:12

Banana,

Isn't that exactly what this thread is about?? Keeping it in perspective? Maybe words better projected towards the security officials.

As for the media, most have nothing but contempt for the aviation writers.

radeng

26th Jan 2006, 11:49

So if someone removes his belt for Heathrow security screening and has his trousers come down, are they then going to prosecute for indecent exposure? (especially if he happens to be someone not using underwear?)

BobbyPAX

27th Jan 2006, 04:33

I fly as passenger on a regular basis and so I'm used to the searches etc in the US. The shoes/belt/etc off through the x-ray. A few days back I checked my suitcases at Salt Lake, got a Delta boarding pass but left the airport and went around the city for 4 hours. I returned and flew to LA after going through the x-ray etc. My bags didn't come out on the carousel, and it was the same for some other passengers. We found them tucked to one side, and were told they were just put on available planes and had arrived ahead of us....I enquired and was told this was done every day...so after all the security...they were flown unattended....on mass. I think that rather defeats everything !! Bob.

PENKO

27th Jan 2006, 17:07

BobbyPax, does it occur to you that there are rules and regulations about security that you may be unaware of? Do you know what happened to your socalled 'luggage that flew unattended'?

I am really not saying it all makes sense. I am not saying there are no holes. But do you have an alternative? Would you rather have no security at all? Just walk on and off?
Or do you prefer a 100% check on every single flight? Including a check on your private parts? The expression 'gaping open holes in security' will reach a different dimension then!!!

It's all a compromise.

Farmer 1

27th Jan 2006, 17:40

I remember reading a story a long time ago; it might have been in Readers' Digest, so it must be true.

Anyway, a chap goes to work in a third world country, and is told that a driving licence is the normal means of official identification. So, he gets the forms, and goes to have his photo taken for the licence. He is told to sit on a chair, and the photographer gets to work.

Problem: the camera doesn't work. After a few minutes trying, the photographer gives up, and says, "Sorry about this, but I can't take your photo today. Leave your name and address, and when I get the camera working again I'll send the photos on to you."

Fair enough, thinks the chap, and off he trots. Half way home, he thinks, hang on a minute, how's he going to take my photo without me there? Anyway he goes on his way, thinking he'll call in again in a few days' time.

A couple of days later, a letter arrives, containing a photo - of the chair on which he sat a couple of days ago. Thinking this is very funny, he thinks he will share the joke with the licensing office. He goes, and hands over the papers, and says, "You're not going to believe this, but - " and explains the story.

The man looks at the photo, then at the chap, takes the paperwork, and issues him his licence. For his entire stay, the picture of the chair was accepted as his ID without problem.

Justin Cyder-Belvoir

27th Jan 2006, 18:41

Penko,
I believe that some fairly extensive research on the effect of PEDs has been carried out. This is one document "www.house.gov/transportation/aviation/hearing/07-20-00/mccarthy.html"] and if you search NASA AMES you should find more.

My friend has just left one company to fly for another company, at the same base. He was based with company A there for close on 17 years and returned his airside pass when he left. He now has to go through the full disclosure and search process to get an airside ID with a different company at the same airport. Can anyone explain the logic in this?

FlyingCroc

27th Jan 2006, 19:12

Unfortunatley just as the RAF bloke mentioned above there is not much common sense with these TSA squareheads. This new government agency with over 50'000 staff was founded by Homeland Security (or shall we say Heimatland Sicherheit) and its members are accused of theft of over 15'000 pieces of bagages (they stole my childs christmas presents in 2002 in Washington). Besides that they were accused of groping women and the behavour that I witnessed in some US airports is just digusting. I even saw senior Captains from American Airlines taking their shoes off. Even my 3 year old child was forced to a body search :yuk: When I complained I was warned in a rude manner to better shut up or worse will happen! Unbelievable what happened to the USA! How can we as citizen ever allow this to happen.:yuk:

PENKO

27th Jan 2006, 19:40

JustinCB, the link is not working.

The point I am trying to make is against the sentiment displayed above:
What does it matter that a 'senior' captain is searched?
Would it be ok if it was a lowly fo instead?
(do not let emotion, or feeling of grandeur take over)

Is it really that strange that a child is searched?
Or would it be ok to search certain children from certain areas of the world?
As long as it is not your own?

As I stated earlier, there are a lot of loopholes in security, but come up with a working solution instead of insulting the guards here on Pp. (they are simply following the rules laid down by the airport authorities, how hard is this to understand?)

FlyingCroc

27th Jan 2006, 20:50

goinggrey

27th Jan 2006, 21:33

Are we missing the big picture?
disarm the crew of nail scissors and allow all kinds of mavericks to board with copious amounts of duty free i.e. 40oz. bottles of very flammable liquids!
I bet next time you are in the left seat at 30West and some drunk pours several bottles of whiskey onto the aircraft carpet and holds up a packet of matches, your attention will be focused.
Its ridiculous that we still have duty free sales at point of departure rather than point of arrival, at least from the security point of view as outlined above!

skins

27th Jan 2006, 22:51

Well you should have seen the guard's face when my nurses put their medical bags through the scanner. PLENTY of sharp objects in there. Certainly woke him up!:O

PENKO

28th Jan 2006, 07:35

It is not hard to understand. However the rules do not come from the airport but from Homeland Security. Why is it that every cop or airport screener now thinks he is some kind of authority and stands above the passengers and crew? He has to do his job but he must be polite, correct, not groping ladies and not stealing bagage. He is not above the law, he is as a matter of fact an employee of the people he checks, because we pay his paycheck now with taxes.
Now to answer your questions:
It does not matter if the crew is a senior Captain, FO or a Cabin Attentand. But iI think it is quite riduculous to supect the crew to be shoebombers. As mentioned earlier the only "crew" that hijacked aircraft were disgruntled employee etc, however these people were not armed and luckily we have now armed and locked cockpit doors.
Second I do think it is strange to stripsearch a child in this manner, especially since we got a special screening travelling on a Middle Eastern Airline. Now who would blow up his entire family with a bomb on his own child. Did this ever happen, not even in Israel or Iraq!

Maybe not security related per sé, but a drugsmuggling mother has used the body of a dead baby to conceal cocaine. She was cought by security. This happened in the '90s.
This is how sick people are.

Now back to your case.
You say 'he has to be polite'.
Yes, in an ideal world. But if you are insulted on a daily basis by people who think they are too good to be searched, you might get a bit less polite. But honestly, do you expect to be treated like a king? Or just like the 100th sweaty armpit an crotch that has to be searched that day? Try to see things from the screeners point of view. The really do not want to touch your sweathy body any more than you want to be searched.

You say 'groping ladies'.
How?
Where?
When? If this happens regularly (which it does not) then surely you can sue his ass off. Think about it. You have a hundred willing witnesses standing in line! Here in Europe, men search men, women search women when it comes to a pat down/body search/frisk whatever you call it. I am absolutely sure the same is the case in the U/S. When you frisk a person, private parts will be touched. It is inevitable. And it is not groping.

'Not stealing baggage'
No comment.

'Not above the law'
No. But close to it. It comes down to this. If you want to fly, you have to submit yourself to a search. That's the deal. That's the game.

'Crew are not shoe bombers'
At one airport I used to work at, even the screeners were screened when they came to work. Initially this caused some consternation of course. But this is how the airport designed it's security.

A 10 meter concrete fence, 100% baggage and stripsearch and deployment of the army along the SID and STAR would be perfect. Anything else will be a COMPROMISE. Maybe some things make sense, maybe they don't. No problem in discussing that.

But don't fault the screeners. That's all I am saying. Play the game.

FlyingCroc

28th Jan 2006, 08:05

I agree security is never 100%, but creating a huge agency which regularly harasses Pax and crew is not the solution either. Before security at US airport was private, done by low income personnel. Now a huge federal agency controls it. Is the security now better? I doubt it, I believe if someone wants to hijack they will be smarter than walking with a gun through the screening aera. There are many more loophole, catering, maintenance, even security personnel etc. In the US before 911 the main difference was that everyone was able to get to the boarding gate. Before entering the aircraft the person had to present the boarding pass and an ID.

Concerning stealing, since the US does not allow closing your bags anymore its much easier now for people to steal: http://kvoa.com/global/story.asp?s=2701978&ClientType=Printable

Groping also a problem: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/News/story?id=277647

PENKO

28th Jan 2006, 08:34

FC, the article in questio is about miss Lupone, an actress, a celebrity (alarm bells!). They always think they are above everyone else!

Anyway, I read the article, cannot see anything that went wrog. When you are frisked, breasts are examined. Your behind will be examined. Your crotch will be examined. All frequent travellers know that. The article only points out that communications should be improved, people should be warned that they will be subject to a fairly intrusive frisk. A valid point.

Let me say it again, security personell do not LIKE frisking people. They do not volunteer to do the frisking for the day just so the can piss off some rich people. They would rather sit behind the x-ray machine telling their colleagues which bags of smelly poo-stained dirty underwear to open than to to the dirty job themselves!

Danny

28th Jan 2006, 10:51

Never fails to amaze me, how many people fail to understand the logic behind all the 'security' we are discussing here. No one is advocating that there shouldn't be security screening. We have all become used to the facts of life after 9/11. In fact, many of us were used to it before 9/11.

I have no objection to having my bags scanned and passing through the metal detector on the way to the aircraft. What I do object to is the attitudes of some screeners, especially when in the US, and their ability to make your life hell if you so much as give a whiff of dissension. That is akin to the power the Brown Shirts in early Nazi Germany had. They felt they were above the law and they could use their 'powers' to make life hell for anyone they didn't like whether it was anything to do with the job in hand or not.

What I have always advocated and it is already known that it is the best way of preventing hijacking is passenger profiling. Now, before the PC brigades get all hot under the collar, I am not advocating racial profiling. I am advocating 'intelligent profiling'. I use the word 'intelligent' in both senses of the word, IQ and information gathering.

All passengers should be profiled before they even get to the check-in desk. The profilers need to be well trained and intelligent enough to do the job. Invariably we see all this coming down to cost. The profilers have to know what they are looking for on the passengers ticket, the answers that the passengers give, their demeanour etc. Based on the results they are either assessed as no/lo-risk or else they are passed on for secondary profiling by someone further up the food/intelligence chain. Only after being profiled can they check-in and then go on to pass through security screening which could be much less intensive.

The reason I advocate profiling, and I don't mean the minimum wage Securicor employee who has a quick look at your passport and asks a few very simple questions but can usually be outfoxed by anyone with more than single digit IQ, is that it is not the weapons that do the damage but the person willing to use them. All the scanning and TSA style rigid conformity tactics will not prevent someone with the intent to do damage from getting on the aircraft. We all know there are many different things that can be used as weapons. It is the intent to use a weapon that is the factor that we are trying to prevent from getting on board.

Unfortunately, the mandarins that dictate policy have felt it is better to have a big cosmetic show of strength that we are all now familiar with. The X-Ray machines and the induction loop. The farce is that we have all experienced the security person who insists on making you take your shoes and belt off and then emptying your flight case out looking for anything that could be considered by them useable as a weapon. It only takes a couple of well trained terrorists to get through that security and what we have is some people with 'intent' on board. The locked cockpit door may be our last barrier but that doesn't make it any safer for our cabin crew and passengers should the terrorists want to make a point by trying anyway.

You or I could accidentally leave a knife or a gun in our baggage. If we were able to get past the current security, accidentally, and end up on board with the weapon, there is no real danger as you or I have no intent to use that weapon. On the other hand, someone who intended to cause problems on board could still pass through the current security and once on board use any number of items freely available on board to carry out the intended acts of violence. There is nothing better than someone with something on their mind, specifically knowing that they intend to carry out an act of terror, to give off the signals that will alert a well trained profiler. Get them at this stage and you have a much more effective deterrent.

We need proper profiling. I don't mind being asked sensible questions and having my ID checked before I get anywhere near 'security'. Someone properly trained and not on the minimum wage but a career specialist can tell pretty quickly if I'm likely to be a threat. After that, all we'd need the heavy metal security equipment for is to prevent the neanderthals who put non-empty petrol canisters and other assorted dangerous goods into their hand baggage.

Sadly, profiling is probably too expensive and non-PC to be used properly except for a few carriers. That is, until the next spectacular by the terrorists. Door, stable, bolted, lock, horse... rearrange the words in the correct order.

sky330

28th Jan 2006, 10:56

The problem is threefold
1. Your security will never be 100%, you have to accept that, so to be as effective as possible, your security must be 'balanced'. It is stupid to spend a lot of asset on pax checking while at the same time, you spend nothing in other array. And THAT is what happening today and what p** off a lot of professionnal travelers.

2. The checkers must be professionnals, in all acceptation of the term, and this far to be the case. Most are incompetent and rude. Or am I just unlucky to pass only by the worst airports of the world???
I don't buy the 'it's the 100th guy/gal of the day being rude to me, so I..'. Same is valid for cabin crews in a lot of airline, and they keep having a smile, after 14h flight and saying 400 times in a row, 'good bye, Sir, Thank you'.
I don't buy either the "they are only low paid guy". In my country, firemen are very low paid guys and nobody complains about their competence or politeness.
Sure paying more will helps finding good guys, but mainly is is the selection and supervising process that should be revised seriously.

3. Any security system ends up by thrusting someone, either the checkers, the system administrator, whatever depending of the structure, but in fine you have to thrust someone.
It is also stupid to check someone througfully when you will HAVE to thrust him 10 minutes later.
I don't need any weapons, nail cutter, bombs, whatever to crash my aircraft in the Empire States building next time I will take-off from JFK and hold on...There is absolutly nothing you can do about it once and I am onboard!
So either you thrust me, on the basis of the security check you have done before giving me/renewing my licence and in that case you don't have to chek for nail clippers or you don't and in that case you should revoke my licence immediately.
It is either way, trying to be in between is maybe a nice show off for politicos but is wasting assets.

PENKO

28th Jan 2006, 12:01

Danny, the profiling you talk about is being done already on certain flights ouy of certain airports. It certainly has it's merits and is more effective than as you say, an induction loop + x-ray.

The problem is cost and time. It wil take at least 3 times as long to board flight. Handing over your bag and walking through the loop may takes 20 seconds max per pax. Profiling a person you take 20 seconds just to introduce yourself and the procedure, 20 seconds up to 1 minute to gather and look through documents. Another 30 seconds to ask questions. Add it all up. And this is with a normal blond blue eyed European person. Put an Arab through the system and you spend at least 5 minutes per passenger. That is the reality of profiling. You simply cannot profile a person in 20 seconds.

Cutting corners here and there (COMPROMISE!!) you might speed things up a bit. Either way, traffic will slow, lines will triple. Airlines will hate it. As I said, this procedure is in place already throughout Europe on selected flights. It works way better, but it costs and it is slow. Very slow.

GE 90

28th Jan 2006, 12:06

I have read most of the posts and tend to agree with the majority. We need security screening and it needs to be seen to be thorough. This makes potential terrorists think twice and we might even be lucky and catch one who is trying to bluff his way through.
It is a boring job and so is open to mistakes due to operator fatigue. (Imagine 2 hours over the Atlantic with no autopilot.) This means you have to recruit the type who doesn't bore easily. This means they are not employed for their brains. The problem then is you cannot train them to use their judgement, so they have to react in the same way when they find something.
I was due to fly out to rescue a plane and so was carrying my toolbox as hand luggage because we were flying out on the relief aircraft. (No loaders) Of course the box showed as a black rectangle so a physical check was carried out. Of the 2lb hammer, selection of screwdrivers, pliers and cutters, the only thing that was nearly confiscated was a Stanley knife. It took 3 people all explaining the situation to get my knife back.
Moral of this story? Don't go hi-jacking with a knife, use a hammer instead.

PENKO

28th Jan 2006, 12:33

The problem then is you cannot train them to use their judgement, so they have to react in the same way when they find something.

Sounds very much like the modern day pilot!!:}
Get the QRH out and follow SOP!!

GE 90

28th Jan 2006, 12:47

Sounds very much like the modern day pilot!!:}
Get the QRH out and follow SOP!!

Trouble is, the powers that be think that is the way to go for we LAME's too. We are no longer allowed to use our judgement. If it aint in the MEL it aint flying.

Thrush

30th Jan 2006, 22:23

Good post Danny. Most of us pros agree with what you say. get the punters to the airport early and profile the buggers.

Keep up the good work.

fly-half

31st Jan 2006, 02:22

How about the pear that I usually get served with my meal? Its always so hard and unlikely to ripen for at least another week - maybe it could be used as a weapon? I can't wait till I'm Captain, they always get the edible fruit, not to mention the Crunchy Nut Cornflakes. :suspect:

Speaking of security, when I go through the centre at Concorde House where they have a lecturn, they get ever so confused when I ask for "a table for two, non-smoking". It always gets my Captain laughing and we get off to a good start to the day but I am fully aware that behind us as we leave, the security staff are saying, "What t:mad: ers!"

cyber_maverick

20th Feb 2006, 11:23

its a mandatory nowadays to conduct a background check in any transactions or what so ever that deals with safety. its better to take necessary precaution than be sorry in the end.

We are sorry too - that you cannot place advertising on PPRuNe without first getting approval, and entering into an agreement to pay PPRuNe its going rate.

As it is your first post you are being treated well. Any others and your stay with PPRuNe will be short lived.

PPP

cyber_maverick

21st Feb 2006, 03:00

its a mandatory nowadays to conduct a background check in any transactions or what so ever that deals with safety. its better to take necessary precaution than be sorry in the end.

As it is your first post you are being treated well. Any others and your stay with PPRuNe will be short lived.

PPP
sorry for that didnt mean to bypass

goinggrey

21st Feb 2006, 20:04

A colleague in full flight crew uniform presented himself for security inspection at the crew lane in Heathrow. The security person demanded to view his ID, which was promptly retrieved from the jacket pocket and made available. “IDs must be displayed by crew on their outermost garment” announced the security person. Our Captain mentioned the many passengers in the nearby lanes without IDs on their outermost garment. “They all have boarding cards!” loudly announced the security person.
“Why aren’t they wearing their boarding cards on their outermost garments?” inquired our obliging and curious Captain.
.
.
.
Subsequent flight delay put down to Airport Security!

Pointer

21st Feb 2006, 20:54

In this instance the security personel were correct and it's my personal view that the captain should have gotten a bollocking(how do you spell this?) from his boss. i think he could graciously accept his mistake rather than go into discussion on this instance.

I beleive most airlines have in theire ops manual stated that indeed he needs to wear his id visible when in uniform etc...?

(This however does not mean i like the way some people perform theire duty's as security guard, but as long as we all swallow this inadaquate way of doing business we'll keep on getting abused as flight crew :{ )

Sunfish

21st Feb 2006, 22:12

I think Danny is correct, profiling has its place, and it is already being done in certain ways in certain places as a number of drug dealers have found to their cost.

Personaly I think the most effective security tool is a brief interview. Going into Canada a year or three ago, I was asked four extremely searching questions in about thirty seconds by their immigration guy and there was no way I could have answered them if I wasn't who I said I was and preparing to do what I was going to do. These guys were sharp.

In answer to all those who say "Well I got my leatherman into the cockpit", "I can get airside at XXX without going through security blah blah" and similar statements pedalling the fallacy that because screening is never 100 percent effective that it ought to be abandoned, you need to understand the military concept of "Defence in Depth".

The concept of Defence in Depth implies that you never rely 100 percent on one single resource to protect you. Instead you use a series of interlocking resources that overlap in such a way that there is always another layer of defence if the first is breached.

The five most obvous layers are locked and strengthened cockpit doors, sky marshalls, screening and removal of sharps, xraying of baggage and security background checks on all staff. That last item is being inflicted on the entire Aviation community in Australia as we speak.

There are other layers that may exist but I don't wish to speculate.