Airport Security (Merged) - Effects on Crew/Staff

[BOAC]

Just to confirm - my reservations were with the 'authorities'. I know the IPA is active (although BALPA will not 'officially' work with them??).

Anyway - can we have some BALPA's supporting this idea please?

[BOAC]

Now we have a lowered 'alert state', does anyone have new DofT guidelines for crew security clearance? EG Do we still have to do 'shoes'?

[30W]

BOAC,

Haven't seen any 'official' notification for crew, but operated from BHX today and didn't have to remove shoes. Even my sandwiches with Branston Pickle slapped heavily inside didn't raise query!:)

Is sanity returning? - I dearly hope so.......:ok:

30W

[matt_hooks]

Indeed 30W, one can only hope so!

I think that the industry will not take too much damage if the security can be scaled back to a sensible level at this point. If the hyper-restrictive security had carried on for a few more days I think serious damage could well have been done!

Here's hoping that lessons will be taken away and learned from this process.

[Stall Horn]

Further to my last post on here, (No: 409), in which I copied an e-mail I'd sent to BALPA, I have now received a reply. They've obviously received messages from others too!

It does appear as if they are taking it seriously...
It remains to be seen what they actually do.


Thank you for your e-mail which Pauline Knapp has forwarded to me highlighting your comments to the Chairmans Security brief to our members.

At the next meeting that BALPA has with TRANSEC we will be raising with them some of the anomalies and the obvious lack of security training and the inconsistencies that have come out of the heightened security measures, particularly so whilst we were under the ‘critical’ regime. These particular difficulties should reduce now that we have returned to the ‘severe’ regime, but there is no reason why we should not learn from them in case of a return to ‘critical’ in the future.

Some of the issues that we will take up from your input and others are the non segregation from passengers when security screening flight crew.
The confiscation of essential tools of the trade, such as pens, lap tops soft lens eyewash and mobile phones.
The impossible operating constraint of having bags in the hold when operating shorthaul with a frequent change of aircraft. Lack of access to food and drink.

As you say, the procedures put in place are not sustainable long term, and unless the passengers are treated more reasonably we will not have an industry left to protect.

Many thanks for your input, it is most appreciated

Regards

Carolyn Evans

Head, Flight Safety Department
The British Air Line Pilots Association
Telephone: +44 (0) 20 8476 4000
Fax: +44 (0) 20 8476 4077
Mobile: +44 (0) 7798567412
E-mail: [email protected]


BALPA Legal Protection for members
Emergency Helpline: +44 (0)208 476 4099 Legal Advice Line: +44 (0)208 476 4082
www.balpa.org (http://www.balpa.org/)

[Sunfish]

In Australia we have to have an ASIC (Aviation Security Identification Card). Costs about $110 and you get checked by ASIO, CIA, FBI, Federal police and anyone else they can think of. Issuing them took a year.

Anyone and everyone who goes airside is supposed to have one of these at any airport that has an RPT service...........But I'm not sure about the kangaroos at some outback strips.

[World of Tweed]

You raise a good point Sunfish....

In the uk we don't have a nationally issued Airside ID. If we did it would make t far easier for those of us who regularly fly out of mutiple bases.

For example my MAN ID was not accepted alone on a recent (pre-last week) trip to BHX. I was asked to produce my passport and licence. I almost refused as even though our respective IDs are issued by different airports they are still valid identification. I felt like asking him what was the point of a Criminal Records Check and 5 years referencing for an ID that he is going to ignore just because it says MAN instead of BHX..... I DIDN'T though as I got the impression that he was only the messenger.

The problem is compounded by the fact that not all our airports are owned by the same operator.

We need a national Airside ID system - or security personel who accept them on face value.

[bruppy]

BOAC,

Haven't seen any 'official' notification for crew, but operated from BHX today and didn't have to remove shoes. Even my sandwiches with Branston Pickle slapped heavily inside didn't raise query!:)

Is sanity returning? - I dearly hope so.......:ok:

30W

"Official" line at BHX is as far as I can make out, 1 in 3 to have their shoes/belt, watch etc removed & I believe Security are "unoficially" hitting those crew/staff who are not BHX based, (Believe me from what I've heard they are all as p155ed off with this as we are). cant believe though that they did'nt flag up the potentially dangerous Branston pickle though, if not for any thing else but taste concerns alone ;) ;)

WOT's call for national I/D's is something that has been asked about for ages, I have the pleasure (??) in working for a company with bases at 13 UK airports & I have either visited (officially) or worked in nearly all, by far the worst has always been the BAA ones for petty mindless Bureaucracy (thank god for spellcheck) & I believe that it is because of the BAA not willing to open up its airports that a national ID system has never been implemented.

Hopefully the current security issues that have been highlited will force the Govt to re-examine its ID protocols & get rid of the totally banal disclosure system. anyone ever totally read the 8/9 pages of offences that can stop you getting a pass, i think that "sexual relations" with an animal was amongst them, in that case how did Air Wales ever recruit!! :p :p

[NG_Kaptain]

I've just returned from a four day rotation, before I left I posted on how security at EGLL was reasonable and crew friendly, I retract that. This morning we went through a dedicated crew security checkpoint in our crew bus, were treated as potential "security risks", passenger restrictions placed on crew, one small piece per crewmember, our flight attendants were required to put their purses(female FA's) in their totebags, I was given a choice...Nav bag or laptop in cockpit the other in hold...It was farcical, lip stick and perfume confiscated and all of this at a crew checkpoint with a crew in dedicted transport with all of us knowing each other, no chance of imposters. Was totally unbelievable, thought Heathrow security had common sense.

I sure hope the security gurus are reading these posts.Thank god I'm going on leave and dont have to put up with the :mad: for a while...

[sky9]

Don't be too hard on Security. One of the easiest ways of getting onto the FD is to get a job as cabin staff.
What we really need is proper security checks before the issue of any airside pass. The last couple of weeks has shown that this may well not be the case.

[luddite]

Dunno about that Sky9. According to Breakfast tv the easiest way is just to roll up as a 12-year-old runaway with no documentation at all.

[A and C]

Last night I saw the latest from the BAA security boss at Gatwick, in this missive he admits that he is prohibiting crew from carrying ALL items of cosmetics dispite the fact that some of these items are NOT prohibited by the DfT.

This just shows that the third rate security management of the BAA cant inforce the security regulations that they are required to by law and so are just making up the rules as they go along.

The prohbition of lip balm is a real health issue to those of us who have to work in the very dry enviroment of a pressurised aircraft and to have such items removed just because the BAA can't cope is not good enough.

The fact of the matter is that the BAA security management is not up to the job and should be removed.

[AuthorityStinks]

The problem is now solved altogether. This morning on BBC Breakfast it was reported that a 12 year old WITHOUT a ticket managed to get on an aircraft at (I believe)Gatwick:ugh:

Just get yourself a 12 year old and take with you what ever you feel appropriate:D

[NiteKos]

All the lad had to do is latch onto a family and walk past the security gate in the confusion over boarding passes, he still passed through security and was stopped by the Monarch crew when he tried to board the aircraft by himself.The GM TV report that he was seated having a snack is pure fiction. The system worked and filtered out a non ticketed passenger before departure. Its worth remembering, as crew, that the boarding pass check is the one time that crew can be an effective final check of any failings by security by making sure all pasengers are fully ticketed and entitled to fly.

Well done the Monarch crew in doing a first rate job when others were clearly failing in theirs.

[Nov71]

TV now reporting an adult male with briefcase sat in a Thomas Cook plane during cleaning phase. Legged it when challenged

[763 jock]

Went through the crew channel at MAN this morning. Didn't have any liquids with me but one other guy had a body spray pulled from him. A lady working for WHSmith had several cases of shrink wrapped Tropicana or similar allowed through as it was presumably "stock". Totally inconsistent as she then proceeded into the baggage handling hall where it could have been handed to an untrustworthy pilot like me..:ugh:

[ALLDAYDELI]

whats the deal at LHR currently for pax & crew clearing security landside to airside, full body searches still in order.?

[NG_Kaptain]

whats the deal at LHR currently for pax & crew clearing security landside to airside, full body searches still in order.?
Yes it is. Yesterday went through the crew channel at EGLL and the whole crew was given the full treatment. Was told crew were considered passengers in their eyes and the pax guidelines were to be followed and applied to us. This was through the drive through entrance in the crew bus going airside.

[etsd0001]

I've just had my BAA LHR ID renewed. One of the farcical things about it was I needed to bring my passport and NI number to prove who I was. This was after I had driven across the airport, airside, on my exisiting valid ID!

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Ref the young lad who walked through Gatwick onto an aircraft and the guy who disturbed the cleaners.. It's all PERFECTLY OK because a bloke from Gatwick just said on TV there was definitely no breach of security..

Just where do they get these nut-bags from?

[763 jock]

I bet he got away with it because he wasn't carrying any liquids, hair gel, mineral water or specs in a case!:E

[bigbusdriver06]

Crew coaches going through the security point? Now that IS a real security risk. You hide something lethal on the coach, they don't find it in their search and you pick it up 5 minutes later. This must be the easiest way for crew to get illegal items aboard an aircraft. Amazingly, the DoT regard this risk as acceptable.

Once I accidentally left my mobile phone on the seat and it was still there when I returned. So much for a thorough searching.

The only solution is to have a different coach airside.

[flt_lt_w_mitty]

I'm getting - how do you say- p!ssed off? with the delays my ops are getting in the UK.

Can any of you guys tell me how to get my crews through your security points?

Do we need to hire Police or Customs costumes so we are waved through or do I get one of my F/As to bring her 12 year old son along for the trip?

I guess this sound a bit trivial the way I write, but a serious question here, WTF is going on?

[lexxity]

EGCC today, one of my collegues was not allowed a powder eyeshadow through, but a lipstick was ok. Also the operating flightdeck of one our services were made to check their nightstop bags in because they contained such items as deoderants, etc. :confused: :confused:

Also found very little discretion at the security point for pax, if their one bag was even half a centimetre too big it was sent back to check in, which makes us look unproffessional. We have been given a security tray which is evidently bigger than the gauge security are using.:mad:

[eidah]

I'm getting - how do you say- p!ssed off? with the delays my ops are getting in the UK.

Can any of you guys tell me how to get my crews through your security points?

Do we need to hire Police or Customs costumes so we are waved through or do I get one of my F/As to bring her 12 year old son along for the trip?

I guess this sound a bit trivial the way I write, but a serious question here, WTF is going on?

You are not the only one p!ssed off I think every airline staff member working or going through uk security is feeling this even secuity staff. I quess the only way to get through security points on time is arrive early its a pain but there seems no other way.:sad:

[NG_Kaptain]

EGCC today, one of my collegues was not allowed a powder eyeshadow through, but a lipstick was ok. Also the operating flightdeck of one our services were made to check their nightstop bags in because they contained such items as deoderants, etc. :confused: :confused:
Also found very little discretion at the security point for pax, if their one bag was even half a centimetre too big it was sent back to check in, which makes us look unproffessional. We have been given a security tray which is evidently bigger than the gauge security are using.:mad:
At EGLL they took away the lipstick from our flight attendants but left the eyeshadow:confused: the security person said she didn't know why they needed more than one lipstick as she only brought one to work with her. BTW we are long haul and are away for extended periods.

[brain fade]

I work for BA Connect and as all our a/c are all 'dispersed' at so called 'regional' airports, our operation has been much less affected by the current goings on.
I think big BA could make things easier for itself next time (God forbid) if it based some hulls outside London.

Stating the bleedin' obvious I suppose.:hmm:

[Genghis the Engineer]

I work for BA Connect and as all our a/c are all 'dispersed' at so called 'regional' airports, our operation has been much less affected by the current goings on.
I think big BA could make things easier for itself next time (God forbid) if it based some hulls outside London.
Stating the bleedin' obvious I suppose.:hmm:

Or just arrange to have flight bag, et. al. delivered to the cockpit by groundcrew as essential flight equipment? A nuisance, but probably better than the nauseum that several people have described above.

G

[BOAC]

Sadly, if you read this thread right through, the engineers are having trouble getting fluid replenishments through - oh, and we often do not have 'groundcrew'.:bored:

[BOAC]

I have asked the IPA to try to get a 'definitive' from the DofT on their guidelines for crew under the new, downgraded security state. I will publish here if I get them. Any BALPAs got them?

[Aloon]

I'm sure that 'IF' you wanted to, you could get it through...

I have a metal knife, fork and spoon in my locker... Also a leatherman... A radio, a torch and all other things I need to work and eat on my break!! Has my locker been searched?? NO.. Do I care ...NO...

I have access 'if I wanted' to many different dangerous things airside, but I don't have that interest!!! As I'm security cleared, and work everyday airside... Hell, I could drive into a taxiing a/c 'if' I wanted to!!!

But , of course I don't, never will,, but exactly what a laptop or lip balm has to do with this fact I'm not sure!!!

Don't they not realize that ground staff are as professional as aircrew?? Obviously not!! Can't take smokes to work , but everyone is smoking in the smoking area????? 'HELLO'

If this had happened during one of the heat-waves, and I was told I couldn't take sun cream with me, then I'd refuse to work!! Twelve hours in the sun without protection is asking for it!!! Simple as!!! H&S has to stand up to this, otherwise, people can use there rules so as not to work... Causing more delays and grief for pax!!

[JW411]

It really would help your case if you could just learn to spell PROFESSIONAL just like it says on the pprune homepage!

[Ultimate 6th floor]

You know, I would hate to be sceptical like that, but it sounds like another way of "advertising" the fact that terror is still amoungst us and that intelligence,police or else are still doing their job more or less.

Heard that the kind of explosives would not have been powerfull enough to take down a 747...

[chrisbl]

Heard that the kind of explosives would not have been powerfull enough to take down a 747...

Perhaps you would volunteer to take part in a trial and come back here and lets us know how you got on.:rolleyes:

[GreatCircle]

Well guys, I got caught in it all at EGKK last week, and I am heading back into Blighty next week to Gatport Airwick once more...

I hope it has eased somewhat, and common-sense prevails for both ourselves and our customers. Last time was a total farce, and our ops and security folks are about as much use as a three legged spaniel on this stuff, unfortunately.

At least I don't have to bring crayons to do the paperwork this time around. If anyone wants the CATSA Crew Advisory, just let me know! Happy to oblige...

[RAT 5]

Anyone know what is happening to the 'sky marshalls'? or are they so well disguised that no-one knows who they are. I presume they still are walking around like Wyatt Erp.

[BOAC]

I have heard nothing from the IPA yet regarding DofT crew guidelines, so in the interim (suggest you print and carry?) this, courtesy of 'Ransman' on another thread from BA (for PAX, so crew SHOULD be ok??):confused:

My BOLD text and a bit of editing to remove inessential stuff.

British Airways welcomed the Government's announcement of Monday August 14, easing restrictions on hand baggage on flights departing all UK airports.

From Tuesday August 15 all UK airports implemented the new hand baggage policy.

Customers departing from the UK:
Customers travelling from the UK will be able to take on board as hand baggage one cabin bag no bigger than 45cm x 35cm x 16cm, the size of a small laptop bag.

Cabin baggage MUST NOT contain:
Any cosmetics
Any toiletries
Any liquids
Any drinks
Cigarette lighters
Cabin baggage CAN contain the following:

Electronic equipment, including laptops, mobile phones and portable music and DVD players
Essential prescribed medicines in liquid form provided they are under 50ml. Customers will be asked to taste the liquid. If they cannot taste the liquid for any reason they will be asked to go to an airport pharmacy to have the medicine verified.
Nothing must be carried in pockets. For more detail of the Baggage restrictions click here

Please ensure that you do not check into the hold any essential items such as:

· Household and car keys (including electric key fobs)
· Travel documents including passport and itinerary and any important contact details
· Essential medicines for the journey
· Wallets or pocket size purses

To help progress through the airport all customers are encouraged not to include items capable of containing liquids (e.g. bottles, flasks, cans etc.) in either their hand or checked baggage.

All electronic equipment will need to be removed from the item of hand baggage and screened separately. We recommend these items be packed carefully for easy removal at the security search point.

Extra restrictions are in place for customers travelling to the USA from the UK. Customers WILL NOT be permitted to take any liquid or gel items purchased in the departures lounge into the aircraft cabin. All food or beverage items must be consumed before boarding.

More information
Further information can be found at:-

UK Department for Transport www.dft.gov.uk (http://www.dft.gov.uk/)

[martinidoc]

What the guidance doesn't make very clear is the position for tablet (non-liquid) prescription medication . This is not apparently banned, but nor is it expressly permitted. Since it is liquids which are banned, and the exclusion to this is prescrption medication tasted or verified by pharmacy, I would interpret this as meaning that ordinary prescription medicine in tablet or capsule form are permitted. However my Lisinopril & Bendro was confiscated yesterday at NCL, despite being in their sealed and labelled packaging! Made my blood pressure boil! (to mix metaphors)

[Capt H Peacock]

Mervyn Granshaw calls for a debate amongst all of those who are affected to get some sensible policies in place.

I'm distinctly worried, as I tend to agree with Michael O'Leary and David Learmount. We have a taboo on security under which no-one is allowed to question or clarify the pronouncements of the government. Scarce security resources are detained looking for lipsticks when they should be searching for terrorists.

So what shall we talk about? How serious is it if I agree with O'Leary and Learmount? What next for the 'Keystone Cops'?


Off you go then . . . . .

[Boeingman]

Press release reads:
BRITAIN’S PILOTS ‘FRUSTRATED’ AND CALL FOR SECURITY SUMMIT
- and call for an end of ‘bizarre’ ban on toothpaste, contact lens fluid and other liquids in pilot cockpits
Britain’s pilots, increasingly frustrated by the way in which security measures are being handled in the UK’s airports and in the air after receiving assurances that it would be generally ‘business as usual’ for them, are calling on the Government to call an urgent Security Summit conference at which all those involved at operational level can have a ‘frank and free exchange of views about recent experiences and better prepare us for the future.’

The pilots are also calling for an end to the blanket measures which broadly subject them to the same restrictions as passengers. Even when travelling away from home for days at a time, they cannot take into their cockpits toothpaste, contact lens solution and other liquids and gells, a measure they say which makes ‘no sense at all.’

Says Captain Mervyn Granshaw, Chairman of the British Airline Pilots’ Association (BALPA), which organises 9,000 of the nation’s airline pilots: ‘Since the extra security measures have been introduced we have seen some good practice and some very poor practice. Some airports have coped and some, like Heathrow, have struggled. Whilst the disruption for passengers has understandably caught media attention, there have been endless practical and frustrating problems for flight crew who have to operate the aircraft.

‘We need a Security Summit of representatives of airport operators (such as BAA), the airlines, TranSec (the Department of Transport’s security team), pilots, cabin crew, and ground staff. We need to re-examine all security initiatives and ask if they are advancing the safety of the public, or have become an unnecessary and unintended burden in several critical areas. If we don’t learn from the lessons of the past two weeks we shall be in trouble and aviation could grind to a halt for all the wrong reasons.’

One measure which has caused a lot of concern among pilots is the restriction as to what they can carry into their cockpits. ‘ We have put a lot of our trust into government intelligence sources and have abided by the recommendations, but equally government should trust us,’ says Captain Granshaw.

‘ This is not about special pleading but pilots are already responsible for the lives of hundreds of passengers. The Government needs to revisit its risk assessment and see that there is no logic at all in denying pilots the ability to take on board what they need to operate their flight safely – and often for days at a time away from home.’

‘Do officials really believe that we need to be prevented from using liquids, given that we freely load and carry many thousands of litres of volatile aviation kerosene every day? The measure is illogical and frankly bizarre.’

BALPA is concerned that the past two weeks has seen a lack of inter-agency co-operation.
‘We believe a Security Summit to be imperative,’ says Captain Granshaw. ‘By learning the lessons we can have better integration of services and improve the operational impact of government decisions. BALPA stands ready to help convene and to participate in this Security Summit.’

[Danny]

Once again... the call should be for proper profiling. Highly trained individuals working for a government agency who question each passenger and look at their tickets who can then assess whether they need further questioning. There are many variables that could cause the profiler to require the passenger (or crew member for that matter) to be taken aside for for further, more detailed questioning by a more experienced profiler who would assess the risks, including whether the person needed extra screening or should even be allowed to fly.

Unfortunately, we have heard many times that this is not politically correct, is very time consuming and would cause chaos at busy airports. Errrr... Hellooo! The current fiasco and chaos is caused precisely because the mandarins who make the decisions have deemed that the current method of blanket screening is the only way to go.

I'd hazard a guess that if we'd had profiling in place before the current Muppet show they'd have been able to pay for the whole setting up exercise and a few years worth of running it instead of the massive losses and costs that we have seen because of the bureaucratic incompetence and failure in communications that are a major part of the reason we have the current chaos.

[Hahn]

Result of my last positioning: because I carried toothpaste and a modern car key, I had to check in my flight kit. This was searched manually - the entire contents where upside down - and my pocket pc is not working since then. But I feel much safer now!

[Airbrake]

I am sure we can all give examples of the ridiculous security checks we as crew have to go through. However, I really do think it is crazy that as a pilot I have to walk through security in my socks, just incase I have some type of device in my shoes! It is similar to the tanker driver who had a bottle of Ribenna confiscated from him as he drove 45 000 litres of jet fuel through an airport gate.
The lunatics have taken over.

[jackharr]

I could never have imagined I would say that I am in agreement with the Ryanair boss over ANYTHING, but he is talking a lot of sense over this security issue.

Thank goodness I retired some 8 years ago before all this nonesense started (ex Air UK/ KLM UK - 146 pilot)

Jack Harrison

[Two's in]

However discretely profiling is conducted, it inevitably reveals to all and sundry where the perceived threat lies. Clearly this is not an issue for Nation states like Israel, but if you do not have the moral fibre or self determination as a Government to stand up and be counted as to where you believe your main threat lies, it is a non-starter. Years of pandering to people's rights instead of their responsibilities, makes it very difficult to change course mid-stream yet by understanding the psychological make-up of the likely threat, profiling actually starts to focus in on the cause, instead of just trying to deal with the effect after the event. It is totally in the hands of this Government to begin to deal with this problem, for whatever reason, they choose not to.

[GreatCircle]

Going through the screening at YYZ T3 at the week's beginning, I was questioned by a CATSA screener, who could barely speak English. Then she proceeded to take my flight bag apart, apparently looking for a small bottle - which wasn't there.

We are trusted - can you imagine what they'd do to us if we weren't ?

[A2QFI]

As at 2030 Friday18th August what is the situation re car keys with a 'remote' locking facility - I can't get clear information on any site, including DofT? Thanks for any info!

[ShotOne]

Good on BALPA for kicking off this summit -lets hope it comes off.

Lets hear from these faceless "experts" who are wrecking our industry. Some of their pronouncements just defy common sense. Does it really boost confidence in security for the Captain to arrive on board clutching a clear plastic bag? For most pax it just highlights that the regime is being run by morons.

[biddedout]

It reminds me of the Father Ted sketch where Dougal is stuck on the Milk float which is primed to explode below 4 mph and the other priests spend hours planning a rescue. Come to think of it, Ted and Dougal could be working for the UK authorities as we speak. Or maybe Father Jack is in charge. :ouch:

[bird dog]

Who is the brilliant mind that thinks removing toothpaste from the cockpit will stop somebody to fly a big jet directly into central London or another place if he/she wants to?By the way, what about the axe, is it less dangerous than toothpaste? pathetic!!!

[PPRuDe]

with the short notice implementation of restrictions being implemented as part of pre-planned contingency plan i would be interested to see what safety analysis was conducted.

for example what is the risk factor in confining thousands of laptops to the aircraft hold and...

what percentage of them were part of the 4 imillion (with potential battery problems that could burst into flames) that were being recalled by Dell

Have to say BAW did well, i would never have have thought of losing 10000 bags as a way of mitigating/reducing this risk

PPRuDe

[Chimbu chuckles]

The point MUST be driven home that searching tech crew in ANY way, shape or form is a COMPLETE waste of time.

The security muppets could do a strip search complete with body cavity inspection on every pilot and it would not make ONE IOTA of difference. It would NOT contribute in ANY meaningful way to enhanced security.

If BALPA is unable to get this most basic point across there is simply no hope of common sense prevailing and resources being applied appropriately.

The current security 'system' as it applies to aircrew is FARCICAL.

We go through 'security' and have our lighters, mobile phones, car keys and eye glass cases removed from our nav bags and locked into our hold bag and then take our seats 4' from a crash axe, truncheon and passenger restraint tyes and are then given knives and forks to eat our meal with...for gods sake!!!

What happens when one of the 007 pilots from a US carrier goes through security at LHR...they take his car keys off him but he gets to keep his 9mm?

[MrBenip]

Just passed through security with my f/o at MAN who had a "trolly bag" i.e. bag with handle and wheels. We were operating crew passing through normal pax channel. He was allowed through but because mine was a normal (small) suitcase I was'nt.

A security lady took pity on me and ushered the both of us to an obscure staff channel that i've never used before, again my f/o passed through with no questions asked. Because mine was not a "trolly case" I was asked if I had a wash bag in the case and I said 'yes'. Then you have toothpaste then? - well yes I said with a clean smile! At that point I was made to go to the check-in desk and I had to check my bag in the hold! Gotta get my case some stick-on wheels!!! (my f/o's toothpaste must be safe in a case with wheels!)

- So, I'll just sit on my flight deck and pick my teeth with the pointy end of the Crash Axe! Has the security staff we rely on really gone !^$(*@! MAD?

THIS HAS GOT TO BE SORTED OUT!:mad:

[Ignition Override]

Good luck over there.
Danny, who are reportedly among the best security people at 'cultural profiling', and especially for terrorists who are trained or originate in the Middle East or southwestern Asia?

There is no doubt that Israel's El Al airlines has never suffered a hijacking.
To be quite frank and to the point, why not have a contract with some El Al or Israeli Army officials who can train selected and experienced airport security staff or even certain policemen to work in short shifts at the security checkpoints? Are these skills so difficult or too subtle to teach that police in other areas of the world could not find it worth their time? Maybe home-grown pride is an obstacle.

This might have benefited the US several years ago. Although I'm referring to observations inside an airport, an FBI lady knew that something was rather odd about a foreign "pilot" who only wanted to learn to fly a simulator enroute-but not take off or fly any approaches. Her supervisors told her to forget about it. Maybe if a man had expressed the same concerns, a much larger investigation might have taken place? This was not long before 9/11. We had vast problems between and inside of so many bumbling bureaucracies. Many are still with us (Katrina...either the Army Corps of Engineers or the state of Lousiana etc consulted with the Dutch flood control and engineering experts after the nightmare...good timing guys).

Why must so many nations learn the hard way (despite the recent outstanding work by police in Britain) to identify subtleties in body language which are learned among a foreign (and domestic) culture and family? How many non-Muslim Britains are quite fluent in Arabic, Farsi or the language(s) of Pakistan? If the Israelis have the best people, despite the fact that we can't convert to their methods of subjecting each passenger to a 2-hour check-in and a detailed interview/interrogation, could we all reap large benefits from highly-skilled security staff after they train with the top experts?

I could easily be wrong, but Israeli security forces appear to be experts with both the mentality and the culture(s) from which many of these terrorists originate. Apart from that, the US and the UK have so many people who are bi- or tri-lingual and after a suitable background check (there "lies the rub"), could some of these help identify subtle but key characteristics based upon underground slang expressions or body language?

This was featured in either the "New York Times" or the "Wall Street Journal": one problem with the many thousands of CIA documents (mostly in Arabic and Farsi) which are UNtranslated and must be shredded after a short while is that not enough translators exist to tackle the immense, highly labor-intensive workloads. The amount of lost information is staggering (is the case in the UK?). Background checks or total fluency seem to be the problems. So many people have relatives in other countries and very many applicants cannot be trusted.

Ironically, the largest US terrorist attack before 9/11 took place in Oklahoma City and the mass murderer was a young caucasian guy from upstate NY. He had served in the Army in Desert Storm in '91. Many people in Chechnya appear to also be caucasian. Many are Muslim, which by itself means little, but maybe the grievances among those terrorists are only against the Russians?:hmm: Some of the trouble makers in Chechnya appear to come from other distant countries.

[A2QFI]

There is an article about these matters in today's DT which is a bit strange. On the route allegedly at the highest risk of terrorist attack there is no reduction in the size of permitted carry on cases - makes one wonder what is the exact safety thinking behind the reduction that has been applied elsewhere. Also no mention, one way or the other, of mobile phones or car keys with remote fobs. It would be a pain to get to security and find they are banned when they are not mentioned, one way or the other, in any current official information handouts!

[bacardi walla]

I notice that whilst the UK was "allegedly" about to be the starting point of attacks on USA and is now being subjected to "tighter" security rules, the clown who "allegedly" runs this country is keeping a low profile. Is he still lurking on Cliff's island :confused:

[brakedwell]

Sandra Laville
Saturday August 19, 2006
The Guardian
Nine days ago Paul Stephenson, the deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan police, told the public his officers had thwarted a plot to commit "mass murder on an unimaginable scale".
It was an apocalyptic scenario challenged at the time by journalists, who forced an admission that what was meant by these words was "on a scale never before witnessed in Britain", reducing the potential death toll from tens of thousands to hundreds. Today 23 suspects, two of them women, are being held on suspicion of plotting to commit terrorist offences. While police interrogate them, there are many unanswered questions.

Was there any plot at all?

The laws on contempt of court, designed to ensure defendants have a fair trial, make it difficult for counter-terrorism officials to answer this question openly, but security sources have endorsed information coming out of the US as accurate. It is clear that the security services have collected a vast amount of surveillance material over the past year, which they claim points to a plot in the making.
The original tipoff came from a Muslim informant, thought to be close to one of those arrested. In a long surveillance operation, the security services watched suspects at their homes and offices, in meetings they attended and at their mosques and gyms. The operation involved tracing the money that went in and out of their bank accounts and involved the Pakistani security services.

What physical evidence has been gathered?

Officially police will not confirm that any material has been recovered. Sources have told the BBC a suitcase containing bomb components was recovered from woodland being searched in High Wycombe. The BBC also reported last night that police had found martyr videos on laptops in the course of searches. Reports that a gun was discovered in the same woods remain unconfirmed.
The home secretary, John Reid, said this week that "material of a substantial" nature had emerged in the searches of 49 properties in High Wycombe, east London and Birmingham.
The Guardian has established that scientists at the government's forensic explosives laboratory at Fort Halstead, Kent, are examining substances which have been seized during the searches.

What were the explosives at the centre of the alleged plot?

Police sources have confirmed that the alleged plot involved the use of TATP, triacetone triperoxide, which was to be made up from liquids. This has led to speculation that peroxide, acetone and sulphuric acid might have been disguised as bottles of drink to get through hand baggage checks. Forensic explosives experts say if this was the case the liquids would have had to be mixed on the plane to attain the crystallised TATP explosive.
Gerry Murray, of the Forensic Science Agency in Northern Ireland, believes this would be very difficult, particularly if carried out in the toilet of a passenger jet. The liquids have to be kept at freezing point when they are mixed and the TATP crystals must be dried before being ignited, a process which could take several hours.
Some 250g (9oz) of solid TATP would be needed for a substantial explosion, but Mr Murray said if the individual had never made the explosive before he would need a great deal of luck to manufacture it on a plane. Another theory is that pre-made explosives would have been hidden in the false bottom of plastic drinks bottles to foil hand luggage checks.

What can we read into the fact that no one has been charged yet?

Very little. The police and the home secretary have indicated that they believe they have arrested about 19 of the main suspects. Under anti-terrorism legislation, officers are allowed to question suspects for 28 days if approved by a judge, and it is likely the police will want to use the full period before charging anyone. They are unlikely to bring charges against anyone until they have completed thorough searches, which have been going on at 49 separate locations. Anti-terrorism officers will be liaising with the Crown Prosecution Service.
It is likely also that a handful, about five or six, of the suspects will be released without charge.

Was it really necessary to impose such strict security measures at British airports?

It seems unlikely. The threat level in the UK was raised to critical, which means an attack is imminent, after the arrest of what Mr Reid said were all the "main suspects".
Given that, it seems the measures forced upon British airports for several days were unnecessary. Police sources and the government indicated that if they were looking for anyone else those individuals were peripheral to the inquiry. The argument that the disruption of such a plot might spark others to bring forward terrorist actions is debatable.
The security services allege that this was a very specific, well-planned plot, which took nearly a year to put together. It seems unfeasible that others were planning to do the same thing in the same way.

[angelwings2006]

At MAN T1 staff security route they change their minds from day to day as to what you can and cant carry airside.
One day i wasnt able to take cigarettes/mobile/lighter/pen as expected and the next day i was.
Its becoming a joke i think.
If they are going to put these guidelines in place they should stick to them. ?

:ugh:

[Danny]

Nowhere did I say 'cultural' profiling. It is actually psychological profiling together with other intelligence. It doesn't take 2 hours per pax and it isn't run by the army.

The profiling takes place before you even get to the check-in desk. Again, I am not talking about the current farce where a minimum wage employee from a contracted security employment agency with two weeks or less training and about as much background intelligence as a "breaking news" headline on CNN performing the usual ritual we see these days at all long haul check-ins.

A profiler goes along the queue, if there is one, after having observed the people and looks at the tickets and watches the demeanour of the pax. There is some information on the ticket and there are pertinent questions that can be asked which, along with the response and the reactions of the pax will determine whether this person safe to continue to check-in and on to the normal screening of baggage and pockets. This normally only takes a minute or less and there will be several profilers if it is a busy flight.

Should anything alert the profiler then he or she call upon a supervisory profiler who will take the pax off to a separate place away from the rest of the pax and will be interviewed in more depth and possibly subjected to a more thorough screening. The original profiler will be able to go back to their duties and help to expedite the process for the other pax.

It has usually meant that pax have to arrive up to 3 hours before a long-haul flight which aside from normal technical and operational issues usually gets away on time. Of course these flights still operate their check-in to the same timetable that we do now. There will always be people that don't allow enough time for everything and are in a rush. Most long-haul check-ins close-out about an hour before STD which still gives the profilers enough time to deal with latecomers and they will be well enough trained to appreciate all the tricks in the book including someone trying to ruch them in their job.

The problem is that the bean-counters who run the country have decided that everything should be run by private companies who will have made the lowest bid. What we end up with is people who are paid a pittance with minimal training and the most basic of background intelligence about what they are looking for.

What is needed is a government department which recruits high calibre people with the right kind of educational background and probably having been through military intelligence or security services training who are then trained up. They have the backing of the governments own intelligence agencies and are briefed accordingly.

Here in the UK we have privately owned airport security services who recruit at barely above the minimum wage and little more than the most basic of education is a requirement. Well, of course that's cheaper. All these people have to do is count and pick every x pax for a pat down and a bag search or else they have to watch a screen as bag after bag passes endlessly in front of them looking for a shadow or an outline which they may or may not see.

In the USA it is even more of a farce. never mind the latest screw-up at the Virginia Tri-State airport. The US actually set up a government department and has invested billions of dollars in a security screening system. Duh. They could have done the sensible thing and set up profilers which would have required less people but more highly trained with all the back-up that would e needed for less money probably. Again, a typical bean-counter farce which proves they know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

As far as crew are concerned, whether they have a dedicated crew security screening area or not, they would be asked a few questions by a profiler before putting their bags through for check-in or else when passing through their separate security screening area. It isn't rocket science and is certainly doable. Having operated through Tel-Aviv quite a few times after night stopping there over the years, even as a foreign crew trying to get to our aircraft was never a problem and always took no more time and more often than not, less time to get through the security than it does here in the UK and most certainly less time than it does in the USA.

So, anyone trying to jump on the PC bandwagon and trying to make out that profiling is anti-cultural or racist has almost certainly no idea what they are talking about. Whilst no doubt there would be a preponderance of middle eastern looking types more likely to be pulled for secondary profiling, that is inevitable. However, we all know that one doesn't have to be middle eastern looking to be dangerous. There are enough people of ALL nationalities, races and creeds who could be recruited by the terrorists that the profiling would be intelligence led and practised on known variables which include demeanour and response to questioning.

After all, anyone and I include pilots, would show certain traits if they were knowingly about to commit mass murder and about to snuff themselves out. Also, in the often used excuse about being under duress to just pass something through to someone else airside, the same applies. If your family were being held hostage or to ransom in order that you were about to assist in a terrorist act, a trained profiler would be looking at your demeanour and your response to certain questions.

Nothing will ever be 100% secure but profiling is the best way forward. As has been said over and over again on these pages... It's not what someone can get through the x-ray machine or scanner but the person who is intent on committing harm getting on board that is the problem.

We don't need all these delays and stupid security procedures that are throttling our industry which in turn is making travellers lives a misery and threatening our jobs. We need the government to invest properly but all we have is the Muppet show and a lot of low-paid 'security' workers rummaging through our bags and confiscating candy from kids.

[daz211]

I dont see a problem with profiling at all
what is wrong with cultural profiling ?

It happens all the time

schools profile for their main threat / child abusers
banks profile for criminals

my point is you profile for what the threat is at the time
of the threat

this could be any person of any colour at any given time
muslims would want to be safe when flying so why
would they mind being profiled when the next threat comes
from another nation then profiling would be on another
culture

as far as I see this country has become to soft in
not trying to upset other nations / cultures
we cant fly flags in our towns
we cant sing some songs to our children
we cant say words that might affend
or tell jokes
what is this country coming to

if you dont want to be profiled dont fly
(thats to all) black white red green and any other colour i might have missed out sorry i didnt mean to miss any colour out please dont be affended :ugh:

[Fargoo]

Well, here's the rub.
How much do you trust the person you fly with. You may think it's ridiculous to even imagine that your fellow aviator has any deviant thoughts but do you know them that well??
I'd hope that if your co-pilot got ideas of flying into the ground you would put every ounce of strength into preventing him/her from doing so.
Given that the recent security alert made it clear that the use of home made explosives made by combining several innocuous liquids and triggering with a mobile phone I'd say it was only prudent to deny passengers and crew from taking these on board.
O'Leary clearly has no interest in the safety of his passengers and crew and would rather get his fast turnaround / hand baggage only policy back on track than have a little caution. Don't forget there was a real danger just over a week ago that fanatics would blow several airliners from the sky.

The real problem as I see it is the lack of trained staff at the major airports, obviously staff eat into BAA's profits and we just can't be having that!

Work to resolve the security problems yes but don't whinge that you're not immune to the policies just because you fly the machine. It's really not that tough having to check in your phone and toothpaste is it?

Fargoo :ok:

[Superfly]

Don't forget there was a real danger just over a week ago that fanatics would blow several airliners from the sky.
:

Well, we still have to see the evidence .......... :hmm:

[chandlers dad]

Well, here's the rub.
How much do you trust the person you fly with. You may think it's ridiculous to even imagine that your fellow aviator has any deviant thoughts but do you know them that well??

It's really not that tough having to check in your phone and toothpaste is it?
Fargoo :ok:

No, its not that difficult to check your toothpaste and liquids, but what is going to happen when you are on a 3-5 day rotation, working full duty time limits every day (no time to shop and everything is closed by the time you get to the hotel anyway) and your checked bag does not arrive. Its sitting 2000 miles away and will arrive when you are jetting someplace else!

Totally disagree with your comment on the cellphone. How are you going to call dispatch if needed and no one is there? How are you going to call anyone should you check the phone, and like tens of thousands of others this past week, have their bag not make it on the flight with them. Now you are out for 3-5 days with no cell phone, no phone numbers.

Then you return home from the flight, your bag has followed you around the world and makes it home 2-3 days after you have, and you find that some jerk has stolen your phone, and has been making free calls to Africa on it for a week.. and you are responsible for the bill as the phone's being lost was not reported on a timely basis! With no liquids in the cabin, the crew should be allowed to have their phones, period!

Speaking of trusting your fellow aviator, only one case of a pilot downing a plane on purpose has been documented that I know of. The Egypt Air flight in the Atlantic a few years ago.

We just do not have a problem in this area. That said, have a good background check done on each pilot and give them a secure ID badge that allows them to bypass much of the screening. Do I think that they should waltz past screening? Yes and know but we all know that this is not going to happen, so lets make it as least obtrusive as possible and go from there. After it works that way for a few years then we can work to smooth it out from there.

CD

[MrBernoulli]

I totally disagree with the comments that pilots should be allowed to 'bypass' security in some form or another. Given long enough, a formerly trustworthy flight deck member could easily turn out to be the 'sleeper' we all dread. There is no reason that this couldn't happen.

Mobile phones? You don't NEED them on a flight deck. Thats what VHF, HF, ACARS and Satphones are for. Cabin crew certainly don't need mobile phones on an aircraft ...... though you would never believe it the way some of them seem to be attached to their phones by invisible umbilical cords. Pathetic.

I'm not fond of some of the procedures that flight deck crew have to endure to make it to the aircraft but I believe they are necessary.

[Carnage Matey!]

Then why does said sleeper need to be screened for toxic toothpaste? You are completely missing the point. Were I a sleeper I don't need a shoe bomb to take down the aircraft. I just wait til top of drop into JFK, kill the captain with an axe or fire extinguisher, or just poison his tea, then act normal on the R/T right up until the missed approach when I go hell for leather for Manhattan. No toothpaste required.

And while were on the subject of ACARS, Satphone, VHF and HF, it may amaze you to learn that not all aircraft have HF, Satphones or even ACARS, and even if they do there are black holes in the coverage of ACARS and HF use is forbidden on the ground in the vicinity of fuelling activity, so how do you suggest I talk to the company 3000 miles away when I'm on a remote stand?

[L337]

and MrBernoulli I totally disagree with your comments.

You are an example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. It is your type of ignorance that is making the job of the professional pilot, virtually untenable.

L337

[Two's in]

It's interesting that when going through MCO as SLF, I am a fully subscribed member of the Clear Registered Traveller program. To participate in this I have had an FBI background check, been fingerprinted and had other biometric testing. The result is that apart from the obvious express lane treatment, the TSA staff don't (yet) treat me like an imbecile, even though every Clear Registered Traveller undergoes the same checks as everyone else. There is an acceptance that people in this program have had some positive vetting applied to their status and are therefore more, let's say "predictable".

Applying this principle to Flight Crew, it would not be difficult to standardize and collate the plethora of data associated with holding a Commercial License and devise a scheme similar to the Clear Registered Traveller program but for Flight Crew. That way a fast track approach could be used that pays homage to the great gods of bureaucracy and security, but results in only minimal disruption to crews. Not sure what the general feeling about fingerprinting, background checks, and biometric data being gathered might be, but it saves me at least an hour every time I travel, so it is a price I am prepared to pay.

[MrBernoulli]

L337

Of course you're entitled to disagree with my comments. We live in a democracy in the UK, don't we?

I'm sorry that my alleged 'type of ignorance' has me working longhaul, as a pilot, for one of the worlds largest airlines. I also have extremely recent and direct experience of the current security situation and how it is directly affecting pilots.

[wheelbarrow]

I cannot understand why we as professional aircrew put up with this nonsense. We are being treated as suspected terrorists every time we go to work!
I'm not much in favour of unions and striking, but maybe we should decide to stop putting up with this crap and insist that there are dedicated crew report facilities and specific measures that recognise that we have been vetted, security checked etc. up the ying yang. What sort of moronic idiot thinks that we are interested in trying to blow up our aircraft with a tube of toothpaste when it would be far more effective to do as happened a few years ago in the States if we were that way inclined.
Come on lads and lasses lets push to be treated as professional crews not terrorist suspects!:=

[Carnage Matey!]

I still think your sleeper scenario is wholly fantastic Bernoulli. I'll credit you with intelligence and assume you're not suggesting the scenario of a sleeper flying his aircraft into a building but the idea of a UK licenced pilot supplying explosive hair gel to terrorists? It's a bit far fetched. There are much easier ways to get a tube of toothpaste into the secure zone than to train a sleeper to fly, get him a job and then wait for a toothpaste plot to evolve. AQ are patient but they're not stupid, and bang for buck, thats got to be a pretty cr*ppy idea. If you still think the sleeper is a possibility then lets have positive vetting and iris scanning for all UK licenced flight crew then we can work with security instead of against it.

What is most tragic about this latest security farce is that it seems to have finally tipped the balance amongst pilots. For years we've complied with increasingly stringent (and pointless) security restrictions in order to be seen to be playing the game. Now we are actively working to get around the restrictions, looking for loopholes and workarounds to avoid the restrictions which have been imposed ostensibly to protect us. The lunatics really have taken over the asylum now.

[Carnage Matey!]

brakedwells post is very interesting, even if it is taken from the Guardian, which is somewhere below the Viz is terms of journalistic accuracy. Were the terrorists really trying to mix liquid explosive on board from peroxide, acetone and sulphuric acid? Harking back to my days of A-level Chemistry (in the days when A-levels were actually hard) I struggled to synthesise any sort or complex compound even with the benefit of precise measures, lab stands, white coats, Leibig condensors and lots of time. The idea that they could knock up a litre of liquid explosive in the aircraft bog from the content three Fanta bottles seems somewhat ridiculous to me. OK if they've actually got pre-prepared, workable liquid explosive then lets close down the liquid route, but if all they've got are the ingredients and the AQ guide to bomb making then the government really have over reacted here. If they're are worried about the ingredients then tell people that if they can eat the liquid they can take it. Then we're all with our toothpaste but the guy trying to chug a pint of acetone will give his own game away very quickly indeed.

[sidtheesexist]

Some cracking posts, read with interest. Firstly, when these draconian and totally kneejerk security measures were brought into place, why weren't flight/cabin crew noted as working groups worthy of special consideration due to all the OBVIOUS points already mentioned ? For SH crew (particularly the girlies) the last 10 days or so have been a complete pain in the GM! Secondly, what have our employers been doing do further our cause with COBRA/DFT etc? Thirdly, why has it taken c10 days for BALPA to publically criticise the current farcical situation?

Many refces to El Al and their amazingly robust and obviously EFFECTIVE security policy - why are we not copying them as many other previous posters on this and other threads have suggested?!...............Oh, I forgot, silly, silly me!!! The rights of a tiny majority of the BRITISH population come before the rights and safety of the overwhelming majority of the BRITISH population. 'PROFILING' is desciminatory! :yuk: Political Correctness is a cancer which is running rampant through our society along with an obsession with 'reality' (what the ****s real about it?) TV and instant fame and success.............Meanders off topic, time to visit jetblast.......hangs head in shame...........:O

[FullWings]

I have to agree. If you trust me not to fly into something (deliberately that is), then you will have to take it on trust that I won't blow the plane up either.

If there are 'sleeper' pilots in the airlines then profiling and serious intelligence work are going to be the only ways of finding them out - no amount of security checkpoints or toothpaste confiscation will be much help.

The 'security industry' is just that - there is so much money and employment involved that it is almost a closed loop now; you don't hear many calling for less (but more effective) security, do you?

How's about this for an idea: get rid of all airport security but make the passengers check each other's luggage - assigned at random. At least the people doing the checking will have some motivation to do it well...:p

[RoyHudd]

Government over-reacting, Carnage? Is that conceivable? Nice post, I doubt the suspects would have had the wit to manufacture their explosive mixture and detonate it onboard. All eyes will forever be on bearded bottle-toting bums on their way to the lav, or trying to strike a match in 43B. Shoe-bomber didn't get far, I recall.

[MrBernoulli]

Carnage,

Yep, OK, my mistake with the terminology. Not 'sleeper' but someone who is already qualified and operating and is then 'turned'. This could be a pilot or cabin crew.

How often have you heard in the media from family/friends of some arrested/self-annihilated individual, how that individual was "so normal"/"we never suspected"/"must be some mistake". They may not necessarily wish to martyr themselves; indeed, they may be more useful to a terrorist organisation as someone to get something through security (liquid explosive, timers, etc), more than once, to pass on to another miscreant airside to eventually have all the items assembled airside with tragic results.

We have to remember that these groups are nutters by western standards and don't play to ANY rules. They only have to be lucky every now and again to make life difficult or the risks unacceptably high. We, on the other hand, have to be lucky all the time if we are to avoidd their desired result.

I hasten to add that I am not a Walter Mitty but over 2 decades in the military has given me healthy respect for the adage of 'know your enemy'. The security procedures are a pain in the backside but these folk will test the measures and barriers we place in their way ..... and test them again and again.

[Carnage Matey!]

So we're left with the possibility of a pilot being turned by AQ and we need to find ways to mitigate against this. The military clearly have ways and means of ascertaining whether or not they can trust their individuals so perhaps we need to take a leaf out of their book? Positive vetting for all UK licence holders requiring an airside pass accompanied with a biometric data ID. We give up a day each year for a medical, a day for SEP and 4 days for LPC & OPCs, whats another day for PV? They keep tabs on our persuasions and we verify who we are with our biometric IDs. The only problem I see with this is who's going to pay?

[Ignition Override]

Commander Danny, pardon my misunderstanding.

What I meant to suggest was that the so-called "authorities", to use the word very loosely, employ people who are experts at either personality or character (criminal) profiling-or whatever the "polit. correct" expression happens to be this week.
They are out there somewhere on the globe, but somehow can not be utilized to work in an airport concourse, as you suggested, because of economics (or national pride) being the priority, instead of safety.

Full Wings:

In the US, if you bother on your day off to go to your crewbase airport hub and attend a 2-hour class or so (which all the ground staff attend), you will be given a special ID card. With this extra ID card, you can leave the area of your aircraft "footprint" as needed. You can bypass security altogether, but only at your crewbase airport! This is how "out to lunch" our airport bureaucrats and TSA are. But we can taxi the jet to and from the runways anywhere we fly when Ground. Control says we are cleared.

What is interesting is that at smaller cities in Michigan, MS, South Dakota and Kansas City (not so small an airport), we can avoid the security checkpoints! Each city is like a different country. Once we are on the aircraft and arrive at the hub, we have access to each aircraft we fly by letting the gate agent match our name against his/her 'crewlist'. "Off we go into the wild blue yonder...".

[flyingbug]

I totally disagree with the comments that pilots should be allowed to 'bypass' security in some form or another.

MrBernoulli, I absolutely agree with you that pilots should not bypass security; that is why pilots and other aircrew are subjected to security checks before being issued with airside passes. Passengers are not.

The current trend of seeing pilots walking through X-ray machines without toothpaste is not being performed in the interest of security, but for the titilation of unlooking passengers and the gratification of ill-informed policy makers. If you want to be searched to show solidarity with this policy, go through the passenger channels; otherwise show your security airside pass and go via crew channels. :ugh: :ugh:

[FullWings]

Ignition Override:

The UK has become a bit like that, with each airport deciding on a different security implementation. Sometimes they agree with the national rules, sometimes they don't; sometimes they accept an ID issued elsewhere in the UK, often they reject it. If you follow some of the other discussions on this forum, you'll see that places like Manchester are well up the list in terms of intimidation and malice: I think they could teach the Gestapo a thing or two.

For the last decade or so, pilots have reluctantly accepted the increases in security, even when we can see that a lot of them have been more for PR purposes than actual safety. I think, as aviation professionals, we have reached a watershed and the recent restrictions imposed are the metaphorical straw that breaks the camel's back. I'm glad to see that BALPA has called for a top-level conference to try and sort out some of this nonsense.

[tiggerific_69]

im sure certain UK Tabloids gaining security clearance then planting a fake bomb on an aircraft just to see how well security worked is part of the reason we're all subject to being treated as suspicious.

[Sunfish]

Possums, we've been had!

[World of Tweed]

Profiling - Good Idea - Lets take a look at the israelis methods but I'd recommend stopping short of descimating any neighbouring nations.

Bernouilli - I cannot understand your point of view. Fine, I accept someone may be "turned", but I don't think they'll be using some colgate and a Nokia to carry out their mission. I could be stark b"£$$ock naked in the flight deck and still be a threat.

Unfortunately I believe that where we are now is a untenable security situation that is starting to a commercially impact the viability of air travel to an extent that some airlines are begginning to employ "uncertainty" measures and is threatening the livelyhoods of thousands of British workers.

We have to accept that with any security regime THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A THREAT and if someone really wants to get to an aircraft - put something aboard it THEY WILL GET THROUGH eventually.

These current measures whilst pleasing to the eyes of the public/buraucrats etc.. are really quite dumb.

The measures are inconsistent, depend on which airport you are flying from and it would appear that each facility has added their UNIQUE stamp to them. i.e. at LPL now cars cannot use the pick up/drop off lanes..... they are a threat....but Black cabs....sure they are ok!! See my point.

At humberside we are told to check our overnight bags in, but we are then told once we get airside we can collect them from the baggage system to place them where we wish on the aircraft. ....again Whats the Point??

WoT

[Cargo Cult]

"brakedwells post is very interesting, even if it is taken from the Guardian, which is somewhere below the Viz is terms of journalistic accuracy."
"Carnage Matey" (sic) then proceeds to acknowledge that the substance of the article is borne out by his (no doubt impressive) experience.
By now we should be used to seeing this sort of foaming-at-the-mouth blanket prejudice against journalism here. Given that the Guardian and Observer are still the only newspapers (as far as I'm aware) which aren't owned by robber barons whose primary interests are their own wallets, perhaps greater objectivity is to be obtained by reading the Daily Mail, or watching Fox Television.
I have previously tried to point out here that there's something that rings false about the general coverage of this story, and that there is evidence of this in reputable sources (such as saag.org). However my posts have been removed. I wonder how long this one will last?
No doubt there was/is a conspiracy of some kind. No doubt some of the information released so far is accurate. However it pays to remember, to mention 5 recent examples only:
1) Tanks at Heathrow (pre Iraq invasion)
2) Brazilian electrician in bombjacket, leaping barriers.
3) Ricin "plot".
4) The "Jihadi Brothers" (one shot).
5) "WMD"
In each case the media, in the main (and initially including the above mentioned publications) faithfully reported the government/police early press briefings, which in each case proved to be almost completely fictitious! It's a general principle of propaganda (aka "spin") that people only remember the initial disinformation, and seldom the retractions or petering-out of the non-story. So deliberate exaggeration is a simple, reliable and useful strategy. We live in a time when this has reached epidemic proportions; let's be grateful that not all journalists are prepared to take government PR, or public hysteria, at face value.
And just to make it clear: I have NO SYMPATHY with the kind of bigoted maniacs who try to kill innocent people by any means at all. Neither do I have any sympathy with governments who, whilst claiming to act in the national interest, actually implement policies and disinformation strategies which compound the very problems which they purport to address.

[Flintstone]

I flew out of Heathrow Thursday, the day after the new regulations were introduced (smaller bag, no liquids etc).

When I arrived and unpacked my suitcase I couldn't find my toiletries bag containing deodorant, shaving gel, moisturiser and after shave. Where was it?

In my nav bag (hand luggage) that had passed through Heathrow's 'security' checks.:D

[chandlers dad]

Bernouilli - I cannot understand your point of view. Fine, I accept someone may be "turned", but I don't think they'll be using some colgate and a Nokia to carry out their mission. I could be stark b"£$$ock naked in the flight deck and still be a threat.

Unfortunately I believe that where we are now is a untenable security situation that is starting to a commercially impact the viability of air travel to an extent that some airlines are begginning to employ "uncertainty" measures and is threatening the livelyhoods of thousands of British workers.

We have to accept that with any security regime THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A THREAT and if someone really wants to get to an aircraft - put something aboard it THEY WILL GET THROUGH eventually.

These current measures whilst pleasing to the eyes of the public/buraucrats etc.. are really quite dumb.


Totally correct. They can strip search me, do the cavity search and so on, but once I get behind the locked doors in the cockpit I can do what I want. Let the other pilot go on a potty break, lock the door and thats it.

Give me a frigging break that someone is going to "turn" a crewmember. Bernoulli is grasping at straws here. If this is correct, then a policeman could be turned, a fuel tank truck driver could be turned, a ocean going supertanker Captain could be turned. Everyone of them could be turned into a weapon and kill many people but you seem to forget them!

As Wot says, there will always be a threat of some sort. Going after the crew who for decades have not been a problem, is wasted time.

Disagree slightly with Wot on one point, it will get to the point where it will effect the livelyhood of aviation workers WORLDWIDE if it continues the way its going now.

Correct again on your last point, these measures are a kneejerk reaction to a real threat that we all should have been keeping an eye on for years. Those of us who have been in the business for a while know that this is just whitewash to make the public feel better and keep flying. Someday we will be able to stand up and tell the truth, and start working to do the right thing.

[Farty Flaps]

Mr bernoulli,
I was confused as to why you didnt appreciate the need for mobile phones at work. Then it became clear. "twenty" years in the military" and working for "one of the worlds biggest airlines"That would explain your fragile grasp of the reality of work outside those two lofty spired institutions. Especially if they were the RAF and BA respectively. Both giving rise to Marie Antoinette syndrom. (re Lancet issue 210 2001, The pitfalls of grammar school, The raf, and institutional airlines on the Phsyce of self obsession. A paper by Dr I. AV. A. Chip):ok:

In the real uncosseted world of avaition, mobiles are essential.:ugh: :ok:
edited to make worse already poor spelling

[Symbian]

MrBernoulli you have to be the first pilot I have come across that thinks the present security measures will prevent anyone from flying an aircraft into a building. They are utterly ridiculous and only serve to piss as all off and quite honestly I think they are a slur on every professional pilot’s integrity.

An example of how absurd they are is I heard an American pilot on the chat freq tell everyone how security had let his air marshal through with his gun but relieved him of his toothpaste!

No amount of security will prevent a sleeper or someone who’s had an argument with his wife partner etc from flying his/her aeroplane into a building or another aircraft. A well known freight company with a disgruntled employee on board nearly achieved it. It was only the tenacity and skill of the professional crew that saved the day.

It is about bloody time that governments and security especially the keystone cop’s variety started treating us with the respect we all deserve no matter what greed or believes.

[Porky Speedpig]

It is somewhat surprising that BAA regulations permit the carriage of Kirpans (ceremonial swords which according to Wikipedia can be up to 3 feet long) through the staff control posts and search points but not toothpaste and water. God help us!

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:

The Kirpan is an integral part of the dress ritual or khalsas of the Sikhs, a great and noble race of people.
They are required to carry a Kirpan as a reminder to fight for truth and justice. It is never used as a weapon or at least should not be so employed in the hands of a khalsa Sikh. Furthermore, this dagger is entirely ceremonial and its significance lies in the carriage of the item and not in its size. A small Kirpan worn around the neck will suffice for religious requirements, at least so I am led to believe by those I know from the Punjab. Furthermore; I rather fancy that a Sikh would take exception to being considered an Islamic extremist although in the past all has not been quite as good as gold at the Temple of Amritsar.:)

[overstress]

I too have a small knife. It's attached to a religious device called a 'Leatherman'. It's significance is ceremonial and I haven't been allowed to carry it in my flight bag since 9/11. Nor am I a Muslim extremist.

[LIFELINE]

What about the police and customs. These people are allowed to go though security channels without being challenged.

I think there is an equal chance of an SO19 officer being turned and killing people with his police issued weapon, and the pilot taking explosive tooth paste on to the aircraft to blow it up.

[Ron & Edna Johns]

Ah, yes, and here in Australia one is permitted to carry one of THESE as carry-on luggage:

http://lve.scola.ac-paris.fr/anglais/images/australia/didgeridoo-Player.jpg

Of great cultural significance, these Didgeridoos.... well, they are to the lease-holders of the duty free shops in the secure area, anyway.....

Then again, woe betide the CAPTAIN of an aircraft who attempts to take one of THESE through the security point:

http://racquetdepot.com/images/medium/wilson_badminton_v14.jpg

It is nothing short of a total joke.

[Tigs2]

Ron and Edna

Why would you want to take an Aborigine on as carry on luggage??

Everyone else
I have tried experimenting with my sons chemistry set for the last two nights and i still cant get a tube of toothpaste to explode! I have tried Crest, Colgate, Macleans etc, but the stuff will not explode, no matter what i do to it. I cant set it on fire, i cant detonate it. Even more difficult have been my attempts to set fire to my bottle of water. Evian, Buxton Spring, Perrier, they are all the same. Once the bottle melts the fire seems to go out. Am i missing something? :ugh: Anyone with any ideas greatly appreciated. My next move is to attach in turn, 4 pounds of PE to the toothpaste and water, with duct tape and see if that will make it explode. If it works i suggest with immediate effect that no passenger(or pilot for that matter!!!) is permitted to carry Plastic Explosives on board the aircraft if they are in possession of toothpaste or water.


Just another thought, maybe, just maybe all of the sleepers have been put in jobs in airport security. It might explain the incredible inconsistencies, and they are after all causing more havoc world-wide than the loss of an aircraft. It would be interesting to know which nationalities say you cant take your pen on board.

[eidah]

Naturally it would be fantastic (and even that is an understatement in the current circumstances) if the pilot unions could make the situation more tolerable for the people they supposedly represent, but can anyone tell me where the cabin crew stands in all this?

It can be easily said that the captain doesn't need his toothpaste to fly the a/c to the Houses of Parliament should he wish to do so, but the same does not apply to us trolley dollies. Is there anyone actually defending c/c rights?

Just a shy little enquery by someone who is p'd off because she can't have her daily probiotic yoghurt because BAA classifies it as a dangerous liquid...

[Haven't a clue]

Sometime in the 90s (I think 1995 after the Oklahoma bombing) I was travelling from Buenos Aires to New York. I recall before I left the UK there were concerns at the time that heightened US security might impede or delay my travel. I turned up at the UA check-in and joined the queue, A man was talking to each passenger in turn. When he came to me he asked to see my passport and ticket, and he asked me a few questions about where I was going and why. Then he moved on to the guy behind me.

I guess that's profiling. If it was used 10 years ago in response to a percieved threat, then why not today?

[Pilot Pete]

Airside ID, passport, Identity Card. What will be the next 'must have' once the criminals have copied each of these?Then when they get their ID card - after a personal interview and a profile catagory then they could have a risk assessment stored on their ID card. and the 'sleeper' who was born in your society, who has no criminal record and who has therefore presumably got your 'low' risk assessment could therefore be fast-tracked through security I guess?:rolleyes:

More red tape with the spending of billions of pounds of tax payers money on a fatally flawed security system is not what we need. The resources should be targetted where they will have most success, not on something like a National Identity Card which may be technically possible but beyond the ability of our present lords and masters to instigate without huge gaps and hence lack of security at vast cost.

PP

[Skylion]

Profiling has to come and it is not difficult and anyway Customs have used it for years. Anyone with an open mind, unafflicted by the deadening effect of political correctness and of average intelligence could walk along the line of the security queues and eliminate interest in a good 60% without much problem. Just practice on the next queue you see in an airport , railway station, Madam Tussauds,-or anywhere. With a little experience a further 20% could be added to the "go straight through " list and even then there would be plenty more of zero interest. Resources spent on 20% rather than 100% would have a much better chance of discovering anything that shouldnt be there, whatever form it comes in.

[FullWings]

I think much of what is being discussed here stems from the failure of many current Western governments to acknowledge some basic facts:

In a 'free society', most individuals have the potential to cause damage and/or loss of life on quite a large scale. The fact that they generally don't do so is not a reflection on the level of policing/security they are subject to but on their state of wellbeing, mental health and empathy for their fellow men.

Any sufficiently open society is vulnerable to terrorist attacks, that's a given. Where the choice lies is in how that society responds to this challenge: by removing freedoms from all its citizens in a desperate endeavour to stay in control or by trying to understand why attacks are taking place and attempting to remove the cause itself. One leads to the creation of a 'Fourth Reich' or USSR MkII, the other, hopefully, to a more enlightened and safe world to live in.

Which do you feel more threatened by in the UK/USA: the risk of being killed by terrorist action or the 2am knock on the door from the security services? Statistically, which is more likely to happen to you these days? If you think I'm being flippant, remember Guantanamo Bay for the USA and the police in the UK wanting to keep suspects imprisoned for 90 days or more without trial or charge...

Sorry about the rant - possibly slightly off-topic but I needed to get that off my chest!

[Airbus Unplugged]

Benjamin Franklin:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
Can I say that then Mr Moderator?

[A and C]

We have now reached a tipping point on the security issue, at one time any questioning of the workings of airport security would be dismissed and the person treated with utter contempt by the security authoritys (the BAA took three months to answer a letter detailing mis-conduct by security staff)

The latest list of banned items for flight crew are so restrictive that the press have "locked on" to the supidity, on sunday on a BBC radio show the chattering classes talked about the issue, when the likes of M Portillo start talking about aircrew security then it has hit a cord with the public.

What the industry has to do is keep this in the public eye, BALPA are doing there bit but you to can help when you are doing a PA to the PAX tell them that due to the stupid regulations the cabin crew dont look there best !.

This pressure is the only way that we will get things changed and free the security staff from the hunt for nail clippers and lipstick and let then spend more time in the search for explosives and detornators.

My issue is not with the front line security staff it is with the half witted idiots who issue the orders, it is clear that the management of the BAA has not the first idea of day to day airline opps and see's us as just the providors of customers for the shopping arcades that they run.

I we as the flying staff come a very poor third in the BAA managements eyes after the shopping profits and covering them selfs by banning things that we need to safely do the job to avoid even the remotest risk to being seen to have a "security breach"

[Consol]

My understanding of what signifies a "risk" passenger includes the folllowing;
Male passenger travelling alone, one way ticket(s), unusual travel patterns and routes, hand baggage only.

Now my problem is that this is also the perfect profile of the average staff ID90 traveller (albeit not just males). I am quite serious, I've had grief over this several times before despite being a low profile and law abiding type.
I know for a fact that a certain large US carrier automatically asigns all standby staff pax for "enhanced security check" which are meant to be random! You end up in the "special" queue with other staff pax!
To the uneducated much of our lifestyles/travel/commuting can seem unusual and the expression "I'm crew" can just make matters worse.

I've had the pre check in profiling that US carriers use overseas. Some half wit (not them all) asks you some stupid questions that he clearly doesn't understand. He does seems to enjoy the amateur Sherlock Holmes act though. "Are you carrying any electronic items?" "Yes, my phone". "And is it your phone?"

:ugh:

[RevMan2]

I know for a fact that a certain large US carrier automatically asigns all standby staff pax for "enhanced security check" which are meant to be random! You end
I also know this to be a fact: it's an easy way of achieving the TSA-specified "Enhanced Security Check" quotas.
In other words, expend your officiousness on a minimal (if not zero) risk travelling segment instead of triaging intelligently. (The latter in the same breath as "TSA" admittedly an oxymoron...)
Go figure

[Adrian N]

The comments about the futility of security checks for flight crew miss the point slightly. Of course no pilot needs exploding toothpaste or incendiary lipstick to become a "martyr", but when flight crew and passengers can mingle freely after going through security, as they can at most airports, there can be no argument for not subjecting flight crew to the same controls as passengers.

What matters is that those security controls should be appropriate and consistent. They should also logically take place immediately prior to the passengers boarding the aircraft, in which case controls of flight crew would indeed be superfluous.

[chandlers dad]

The comments about the futility of security checks for flight crew miss the point slightly. Of course no pilot needs exploding toothpaste or incendiary lipstick to become a "martyr", but when flight crew and passengers can mingle freely after going through security, as they can at most airports, there can be no argument for not subjecting flight crew to the same controls as passengers.
What matters is that those security controls should be appropriate and consistent. They should also logically take place immediately prior to the passengers boarding the aircraft, in which case controls of flight crew would indeed be superfluous.

No argument huh? They are simply wasting their time searching all of us for nail clippers, and bottles of anything liquid, because we as pilots do not need anything to take the airplane into the ground.

The security staff need to spend their time profiling, then searching passengers who need searching. Give us a quick once over to make sure that we are not carrying a claymore on the airplane and get on with checking the people who have been the security issue with every aircraft bombing in the past, the SLF!

[DuncanF]

Speaking as a humble PAX, and I'm no doubt going to be flamed for saying this ... but searching flight deck crew and others who go airside is not about the fact that you have at your disposal a huge pointy flying weapon. Rather it's to make sure that you haven't been co-erced into taking something airside and giving it to someone less well intentioned.

If you remove/limit/cut back flight desk crew searches, then the bad guy has an easy route to get stuff on board (and not necessarily your flight) by snatching your pet poodle Snaffles and threatening to do him harm unless you co-operate. Or worse.

In other words, less security implies a point of weakness in the overall picture that *could* be exploited. Short of checking everybody I'm not quite sure how you can eliminate this threat. And yes, logically that means that *anyone* going airside on an "honesty" ticket should be subject to the same procedures which I presume (Police etc.) they aren't. So there is a warped logic behind the process, but you cannot claim, as some respondants do, a special exemption for your trade based on a specious argument.

Retiring to bunker to don flameproof trousers ... ;-)

Duncan

[chandlers dad]

Duncan,

Not a problem. If we are going to use this argument that someone "may be turned" then please also figure into your program that we are also going to have to "re-qualify" EVERY policeman, security person, ramp agent, mechanic, airport official and so on into the plan. Anyone at the airport could as well be turned and thus forced into allowing something to be brought onto the airplane.

Case in point is that the police are not required to be searched upon arriving at the airport, are allowed to carry guns and other weapons EVERYWHERE in the airport and are just as likely to be "turned," yet you are not afraid of them. Why? They are just as human as we are!

Your argument that someone is going to do anything to my family or poodle (which I do not own), and in turn get me to either fly an airplane into a building, or allow someone onboard my jet to then assemble a bomb that brings the airplane down, is simply crazy. Please also add to the fact that I would be onboard the jet and I am not ready to go just yet. In the event that this were to happen, I would simply pick up the phone, call the police and very quickly the airplane and my house would be surrounded. Part or all of my family might be harmed or die but I would never give in to terrorists, period.

I am not saying that it gets to the point where the flight crew are never searched. Do random searches on them and do a simple X-ray search of their hand luggage but going through their bag piece by piece looking for nail clippers or lipstick is simply a waste of time. Use this time to do proper search's on people who have shown a history of causing harm to airplanes, the SLF!

Please stop looking at the flight crew as potential terrorists! We are on the same team as the security people and police and need to be treated as such. Most of us have done this for a while (I started flying in 1973) and this is my life and world. You as the flying public have trusted us for over 100 years now and there is no reason to change this outlook now.

[Danny]

DuncanF, if you don't want to be flamed then please read the whole thread and recap on the bit about profiling as opposed to blanket searches. If your pet poodle had been held hostage and you were trying to sneak something airside then a professional profiler, and I don't mean the minimum wage, poorly trained rent-a-screener we have at the moment, then you would be acting in a way that the profiler would consider worthy of further inspection.

The rest of us going about our trusted routine could be left to carry on without the imbeciles telling us that we must have our shoes X-rayed and our lip-salve confiscated. In the meantime though, we will be treated as though we can't be trusted whilst the armed policeman or customs officer can pass through without the detailed search that we are subjected to. I suppose they don't have families or poodles that can be held hostage. :rolleyes:

[10bob]

Surely the point re the searching of aircrew is more to do with how security can tell the difference between:

1) genuine aircrew and
2) someone with a uniform and fake documentation impersonating aircrew.

Realistically, they can't. If aircrew are waved through automatically without search, then that is a point of weakness to be exploited by someone with a bit of background knowledge, a decent desktop publisher and access to a fancy dress shop.

[Pilot Pete]

That's why we have IDs, but that is another area that needs sorting.:rolleyes:

PP

[BOAC]

A lot of these problems for crew could be reduced if crew pass through as a pre-notified unit. I have had a disappointing response from the IPA on progressing this idea (in fact, sadly, very little at all from them) and BALPA do not seem to have picked up on it. It would practically eliminate the 'counterfeit' crew-member plot. Now we are left with the crew-member 'under duress' problem. As others have said, skilled profiling/obseravtion should pick out these, plus the rest of the crew, and obviously police and customs are in the same potential danger zone and need attention as well.

[flyingbug]

10bob,

I take your point, but airport cards for most employees are not just printed cards but are swipe cards that (when swiped) are capable of providing data including a photograph on security screens: desktop publishing cannot overcome properly controlled security cards.

FB

[DuncanF]

Chandlers Dad,

I don't suggest that they may coerce you into doing the deed yourself or to turn a blind eye to someone else on your aircraft doing something. There is no "upside" for you in that arrangement. However to take something through to handover to another to another person boarding a different flight where you and your poodle finish unharmed may be an offer that you couldn't refuse.

Danny,

I'm not suggesting that other trades moving airside should go through with impunity, far from it. I acknowledge that the current arrangments are far from comprehensive/even handed. I just point out that "I'm in a position of trust so I should be trusted" cannot be a rational basis for an argument to remove checks from *any* group of people with regular access airside.

Your point about profiling makes sense. A mechanism like the customs have currently where their training and experience help them select good targets for checking would narrow the coercion loophole. Good point. One would hope that BAA would talk to the customs people and find out how it's done. Hmmm.

Duncan

[BigGrecian]

The pilots are also calling for an end to the blanket measures which broadly subject them to the same restrictions as passengers.

About time! There is no reason why Pilot's need the same restrictions applied to us especially given the quantities of other material we can get access to following security...

10 Bob-
If they are distinguishing between aircrew why not between anyone with airside access who could place an item for a pax to pick up later?

It's about risk management..

[luoto]

According to one report, it seems that least one security screener is deciding to act as censor for a book just because it mentions Al-Q and other terror / torture events even though the book is 100% legal in the EU (presently, at least!).

http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2006/08/murder_in_samar_7.html

I guess the issue is whether this is just over eagerness or the genus of a policy by airport authorities to pick and mix at what they don't lilke.

Risk for the industry: more passengers get peed off and don't return. Not so practical if crossing the pond but Europe and UK is getting nearer all the time, less hassle for many by train.

[chandlers dad]

However to take something through to handover to another to another person boarding a different flight where you and your poodle finish unharmed may be an offer that you couldn't refuse.

Your point about profiling makes sense. A mechanism like the customs have currently where their training and experience help them select good targets for checking would narrow the coercion loophole. Good point. One would hope that BAA would talk to the customs people and find out how it's done. Hmmm.
Duncan

Please read my post. Then apply it to 99.99% of all the flight crew out there. There is nothing that can be done to me to get me or any of my fellow crewmembers to carry ANYTHING through security then hand it to anyone, period!

We love our job but on the other hand we also are law abiding people (for the most part) and would do nothing to jeopardise anything to do with the flight. I could care less if it were another airline, cargo airplane or C-150 buzzing around the countryside. We would not do it for anyone.

The Israeli's have used profiling for years and are experts at it. When we get to the point where we concentrate on the device and not the person/people trying to do stupid things like this, then we are going to lose. The sooner we adopt profiling, the better.

CD

PS I still do not have a poodle. Would eat dirt before I got a poodle. They are for dizzy blonde's with big hooters. I am neither! :)

[Hirsutesme]

That is very easy to say. It has been shown in other circumstances that when loved ones are held hostage, people will in desperation do pretty much anything .
I am puzzled by the focus of terrorrists on aircraft, whilst they might be high profile, if their intent is maximum casualties=maximum impact we can all think of scenarios where this could be acheived far more easily than trying to get devices aboard planes.

[Bootylicious]

Sorry, but I find this whole 'security' with flight-deck/cabin crew the biggest balls-up. BALPA should be doing something about it. I go to work, fly to some foreign destination, and as there is every chance that the a/c might go tech and I'll get stuck there, I have a basic night-stop kit in my bag. Toothbrush, toothpaste, moisturiser, deodorant, basic make-up and spare contact lenses.
Now because the contact lenses are in liquid, I can't take them on board. And all the other stuff is also taken off me because it's a 'security risk'. So I get to my destination, and hey-ho we go tech and have to night-stop. SO if we can find a shop that's open and sells what we need, I buy replacement everything. Apart from contact lenses. And then of course the next day when we can finally make the return trip, we have to bin everything we've just bought.
Will the company re-imburse us? NO. Will BAA security re-imburse us?? NO!! As a contact lense wearer I'm supposed to carry a spare pair of lenses. Because I can't carry these on board, I have to have a spare pair of glasses. Assuming I didn't wear glasses and only had lenses, would anyone buy me some new glasses so that I comply with pathetic security?!?! Ummm, NO!!

All this talk of 'being turned' is a big what if. These stupid rules don't apply to many others who have airside access, so why are we as crew accepting it? Catering trucks are sealed where they are packed, go through security, and get loaded onto aircraft. The individual meals aren't checked. The individual cans of drink aren't checked. I'm not sure if I totally trust those who pack our catering trucks..... Does anyone?? (Especially after some of our meals were tampered with when we ceased our contract with one company to start up with another caterer!)

Some of our crews have had their home-made, healthy, nutritious meals taken off them at security, because....wait for it..... something like cooked pasta has got water content.... What a load of total and utter s***!!

I really can't believe it has come to this, and we are being treated so badly. Don't go on strike over a pay-rise or lack of, let's all go on strike at having some pathetic, most probably under-educated, ignorant and anally-retentive security person take my lipstick off me, because I might choose to use that to kill the Captain instead of the bloomin fire axe at arms length behind my seat.....

Rant over....... For now!!

[lexxity]

Booty if you wear the dailie (sp?) contct lenses, as a pax you can take enough spares for the duration of the flight, ie one to two pairs. Is this not the case for crew, I've left my what is acceptable for ground staff list at work. I do recall it includes the phrase "an empty water bottle which you can fill airside." (If your company has had the foresight to provide a water fountain, but how are they supposed to refil it?

[Ron & Edna Johns]

The historians of the future are going to look back at this era with astonishment. Astonishment at what society turned into.... And astonishment at what professionals in the aviation industry became. Down-trodden, distrusted, disrespected, treated like crap. And those professionals - the pilots - just sat there and meekly gave up without a fight. The historians will find it unbelievable and disgusting.

So what are you blokes up there in the UK going to do about it? Continue to just rant about it all on PPrune, or get out there and DO SOMETHING? It's high time you collectively had the cojones to say "ENOUGH"! Why are you continuing to fly under such physical (the nourishment issues) and emotional duress? Is it safe? Of course work with BALPA, but for God's sake, do something!

The rest of the world is watching you guys. What's happening in the UK may well spread like a cancer around the globe. Already parts of Asia are following the UK's example and "tightening security".... :ugh:

How do you want the historians to judge you?

[haughtney1]

So what are you blokes up there in the UK going to do about it? Continue to rant on about it on PPrune, or get out there and DO SOMETHING? It's high time you collectively had the cojones to say "ENOUGH"! Of course, do it through BALPA, but for God's sake, do something!

Mate.....Im a Kiwi flying/working here...and Ive made representations..phonecalls..emails to BALPA, and to our company rep, as of yet zilchamundo...I wonder how long it would take if a few more BA pilots (the largest member group within BALPA..who have a history of being apathetic at best..unless you mess with a pension or two) got stirred up about this, although I cant see it happening:hmm:

[BigGrecian]

Due to the various opinions being represented in t - wondering whether there is any chance of a Poll on this - Mods? Would be interesting to see what the consensus is amongst us.

Should Pilots/Crew be subjected to the same security measures as passengers given the fact other personnel are not and have access to passengers/aircraft?

[The Blu Riband]

10bob
at UK airports IRIS SCANNING is readily available. ID issue solved!

[winkle]

how about going thru semi clad. best in front of the pax. since you have to take your shoes off why not just keep going down to your pants. or if that doesnt work why not have a rant, again in front of the pax. probably wont achieve much but might make humour of a farsical situation. might have to be careful with what you say - "why are you taking my toothpaste away when i have just ordered 100 tonnes of avtur to be put on to the plane", careful though, you might find the security manager listening so he will probably call the fuel farm and cancel your order as a precaution. thats how stupid it all is. dont give me the crp about passing stuff (sic) cos it aint a player. umm i hear the mutterings of "professionalism" being aired, well brothers and sisters if you are a professional you should be treated as such just like any other line of work. 4 days ago i was so incensed after coming thru security WE missed things on take off. i put it down to being in a seething bad mood due to this utter b0ll*x. anyone with any human factors training knows this situation is one of the most dangerous. so lets get it sorted now - not next week or in a few days but NOW. oh and the liberals who write on here trying to say its ok - your opinion - but i aint happy anymore and if you open your eyes you will see neither are the majority.
rant over for now:mad:

[chandlers dad]

Due to the various opinions being represented in t - wondering whether there is any chance of a Poll on this - Mods? Would be interesting to see what the consensus is amongst us.
Should Pilots/Crew be subjected to the same security measures as passengers given the fact other personnel are not and have access to passengers/aircraft?

Would love to see a poll done on this subject.

[On-MarkBob]

Well I’ve read some garbage in my time, Mr Bernoulli, but your understanding of our job and industry proves what a total lack of knowledge you hold about the current way a modern airline works. ‘No mobile telephones on the flight deck’, without which we would probably never get airborne half the time. What on earth do you think we do? Have you even contemplated what it takes to fly to the USA right now? What do you understand about the use of aircraft radio equipment while refuelling? Not a lot, obviously.

Frankly. I am thoroughly pissed off having to put up with the utter contempt shown by security personnel toward aircrew. I have been in this industry longer than most of them and I would like to ask why it is and who decides that I am a risk and the security guard isn’t. Personally, I think that the security guards have a greater opportunity to house a ‘sleeper’ than fully employed members of flight crew. At any time, a security guard who may be sympathetic to some warped cause is more likely to be in a position to compromise the safety of an aircraft by being collusion with others or simply planting a device in a passing case.

Profiling is the way forward, and let’s start with the pilots. I have already had to prove that I have been in continuous employment. I have had to supply references from every previous employer and personal references. I have had to have been assessed by the Disclosure Scotland people who have dragged through my background and all sorts. I have had to attend interviews with the airport authorities and at the US embassy in London to prove I am an honest sole. On the back of all this I get a security pass which frankly isn’t worth a cent. The other day I offered to give it back and just check in with the passengers instead.

At what point am I considered to be a responsible guy? I wonder, and in particular, why do I have to suffer the indignities of a bunch of twisted, paranoid, megalomaniac bunch of idiots most of whom have been recently dragged off the street with no, or little, previous history in this business, simply to swell the ranks of the security personnel who are blind to see that if they piss enough people off they will be out of a job as more and more people cease to put up with this paranoia.

After all that can anyone out there point at any terrorist act carried out by a paid and employed airline pilot? Given that the Egypt air crash was cause by a psychologically imbalance chap, he was not a terrorist and no airport scanner or body search that I know of can detect that sort of mental problem.

These security people have hi-jacked our industry and it's time to take it back!!They think that we are there because they are and not the other way around.

[Gnirren]

Terrorists around the world can rejoice, a few scare notes stashed in the in-flight magzines and the snowball is bouncing down the hill. Could we ever provide them with a bigger present than this? They can watch us squirm as our civil rights are stripped from us, as people become more and more paranoid and stop flying. Business crumbling due to decreased pax loads and increased costs. The bad guys must be on rolling around on the floors laughing as we do their jobs for them.

Meanwhile I'm getting my toothpaste confiscated. :hmm: How about nail clippers, are they ok? Electric razor? How about the #€% crash axe, can I bring that?

This is bullcrap people, fresh smoking dung on a plate, and we're chowing down and asking for second servings.

[4milesbaby]

On-Mark Bob

Very well said:D, it is about time people started saying what they think instead of trying not to upset people. I don't think any terrorists have been single white females, or retired, or middle aged. So let us go on with the business of protecting this country and let the pilots and airlines get on with their jobs without being pixxed off in the process.

Keep on flying.

:ok:

[chandlers dad]

The American internet aviation news forum AvWeb just picked this issue up.

BRITISH PILOTS LOSE PATIENCE

(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/703-full.html#193031)

Meanwhile, across the pond, airline officials and pilots are fed up with security measures and delays.

RyanAir CEO Michael O'Leary said last week that measures such as banning shampoo and lipstick in carry-on bags are "farcical, Keystone Cops-like and completely insane and ineffectual.... We are not in danger of dying at the hands of toiletries."

He said he would sue the government if security is not restored to normal levels within a week. His airline lost about 2 million during the latest security crisis. Pilots also have been banned from taking contact-lens solution into the cockpit,

"There is no logic at all in this," said Capt Mervyn Granshaw. Another pilot told the Sunday Herald it was ironic that his glasses were taken away for security reasons. "While my glasses were deemed potentially deadly dangerous items, I once again took my seat at the controls of 185,000 kilos of aeroplane, people and fuel and managed to restrain myself from taking the crash axe to all and sundry prior to rolling, inverted and diving, into the Channel," he said.

Another pilot said: "It's high time BALPA [the British pilot's union] and our representatives exposed these shameful rules for what they are -- some half-witted mandarins making up petty and useless rules to justify their existence, with equally inept and stupid people interpreting the rules."

[MrBernoulli]

On-MarkBob,

Some of you chaps are so busy fuming that I worry about your ability to continue your profession, in the immediate future, in a calm and professional manner.

I gave my opinion. I stand by it. This is a forum for such things, is it not? In MY job I never use a mobile phone at/in the aircraft. I say again, in MY job. If your job requires it, so be it. How did you manage before you had the phone? Perhaps your company needs to consider how its ops may come to a grinding near-halt if you don't have a mobile all the time. Perhaps that would then be the spur to get some of the management types on the back of whoever dreamed up the security 'rules'. If that is what you feel needs doing, then start the process.

I may not approve of what is going on but metaphorically 'stamping my foot' here and going on about hurt feelings will achieve nothing. The procedures are HERE, deal with them. Aren't we, as pilots, supposed to be able to maintain a semblance of professional fortitude in times of stress? Perhaps, with a bit of time and professional manoeuvring, we can get things evened out a bit.

Some of the postings here are sounding akin to the ravings of the very fanatics that are causing the security problem.

[Hirsutesme]

Your last para is way out of order. These lame brained so called security procedures are no such thing, they are merely hacking off thousands of passengers and highly stressing flight crew, and will not do an iota to prevent a genuine terrorist threat.
BALPA must call immediately for special measures for crew which do distinguish them from passengers, to introduce intelligent profiling and for knee jerk admins to stop doing the terrorists job for them.

[MrBernoulli]

Which is precisely why I put the word 'rules' within inverted commas AND said that I didn't necessarily approve of all of them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nevertheless, I am still very firmly of the opinion that many posters here have led mollycoddled existences. A little adversity and the rants begin. Again, as I said above, use the energy wisely and go get the system changed. Write/talk to someone who can make a difference!

[Curious Pax]

I don't think any terrorists have been single white females

How about Anne Murphy, the Irish woman whose boyfriend attempted to dupe her into boarding an El Al flight with semtex at Heathrow in 1986?

[chandlers dad]

How about Anne Murphy, the Irish woman whose boyfriend attempted to dupe her into boarding an El Al flight with semtex at Heathrow in 1986?

Another person caught by using profiling! At this time the country was under an almost constant attack from various organizations in Northern Ireland. You can bet that the security people at the airport were looking very closely at anyone with a passport or identification from this area and caught her before she was able to get on the gate.

You are correct, we have ONE white person out of all of the terrorists, and the organization she was working with has now been disbanded. This is the reason why we search all of the passengers, but hopefully in the future will profile to concentrate on the suspicious ones just a bit more.

Still waiting to hear of one incident where a Western pilot has been turned or involved in a terrorist activity.

[Mister Geezer]

One of the cabin crew I was with today had an unopened tin of Baked Beans taken off her this morning whilst going through security. I was waiting in the queue for security and I was getting annoyed at just watching what was happening. What is more pathetic is that the security screener apparently said 'well my beans were taken off me at work so I can't let you through with yours'!!! Grow up!!! :mad:

Now I wonder if all the crew meals were searched in detail when they were brought onto the airfield? Since the tin foil on my cooked breakfast was intact then the answer is obviously no! Why do they trust a carton of milk in a catering lorry that may be loaded by someone who works in a facility in a landside location who does not need to be security screened yet we can't take food when we have got a airside pass? Logical isn't it? - not!

[On-MarkBob]

Mr. Bernoulli

Back to what I said. Mobile Phones are as much a part of our job now as the very aircraft we fly. A modern low cost carrier relies on them. The information we need to assimilate and dispatch is critical to smooth operations. Low cost airlines by their very nature do not subscribe to a large workforce of 'gofers'. The operation is trimmed to a minimum and we run it that way by the use of mobile phones, all over the world. Communication is everything and the passengers benifit form them by way of low airfares, small infrastructure and rapid response to problems. That is why they are successful. Indeed Mr. Bernoullli you hit the nail on the head! The crap that we have to endure is detrimental to safe operations by getting us irate, we learnt that way back when the Trident crashed at Stains. Shame the security people don't have to learn about it as well!!
The day I got hacked off was when one of my crew was reduced to tears by one of those oafs, in front of a whole buch of passengers, totally out of order in my opinion, what kind of example does that give to the passengers who may have depend on the crew for their very lives? The problem,... she had a spare pair of contact lenses,... like as if there was enough chemical them to cause much more than a single fart!
Taking our shoes off, What for? I don't have to have a knife or a bomb, I could board the aircraft stark naked and carrying not a bean, but since I am flying the dam thing and if my mind or inclination was as lunatic as those in security, I could wipe out the aircraft, all on board and anyone in the way within the blink of an eye!! It is not us pilots who have the problem it's the security that don't have the brains or common sence to realise just what stupidity this whole thing is.

Believe in the system, I've got my pass now let it mean something!!

Bob.

[Bernoulli]

I had to take my shoes off today before flying ex MAN. No one at the "security" checkpoint could tell my why I had to do this. Just following orders from the DfT no doubt. Anyone know the name of the biggest cheese down there as I'd like to ask him the same question? What's the betting that the supine response will point in the direction of Dubya's goons in the TSA.

By the way, ref mobile phones: Where's your home planet Mr Bernoulli?

[inawordavortex]

Some good points here, tis the same for the military as well. Mind you when I walk through security to the jet as a solo pilot (on the odd occasion we are at a civvy field) dressed in smelly green zoom bag. I still get the full monti from security, now you can't shoot the messenger for doing their job, but you gotta wonder about the who is making the rules. Now I don't have a lot of room for toothpaste but need my mobile as there are woman out there that need calling you know, o and the ops room maybe. Tis a tricky one really but we gotta trust some (well vetted) people as some stage or else these scroats have won, what next sky marshals in the cockpit?

[Ron & Edna Johns]

.....what next sky marshals in the cockpit?

That's right. Judging from the way risk assessment gets done these days, I'm surprised the fools haven't decided there exists a possibility of one pilot turning. Knocking off his mate and then doing a nasty. To counter such remote possibility, air marshals would be installed in cockpits. Would piss everyone off, lead to great tension, stress, probably regular incidents due lack of focus, etc. But the clowns will have reduced the probability of terrorist-related incidents from 1 per 100,000,000 hours to maybe 1 per 100,000,001 hours...

This sort of inane risk management approach is being applied to things like crews' contact lenses and lunches. The reduction in risk is probably similarly insignificant. Is it really worth the stress, tension, anger, effort? Mr Bernoulli - you are right about one thing - from all this there would be a statistical INCREASE in people making errors as a result of the daily stress and tension. So, we end up having a 0.00001 % reduction in the chance of dying by terrorism offset by a 0.00002 % increase in the chance of dying due to cockpit error? Great.

The resources/efforts would be far better focused on areas where you could make a significant impact on the chance of a terrorism event. Areas such as PROFILING.

[Globaliser]

Another person caught by using profiling! At this time the country was under an almost constant attack from various organizations in Northern Ireland. You can bet that the security people at the airport were looking very closely at anyone with a passport or identification from this area and caught her before she was able to get on the gate.

You are correct, we have ONE white person out of all of the terrorists, and the organization she was working with has now been disbanded. This is the reason why we search all of the passengers, but hopefully in the future will profile to concentrate on the suspicious ones just a bit more.I don't believe that this lady had anything to do with that terrorist organisation or any terrorist organisation. She was just an innocent dupe of her boyfriend, by whom she was in fact pregnant. It's probably entirely coincidental that she happened to be Irish. His whole point was to use a safe white woman to do the bombing.

And ISTR that she was only stopped at the gate by the extra LY security, where I believe they search everything to a degree that most passengers can only dream - nay, nightmare - about. Caught by profiling? I'd be interested to know if you have any hard evidence of that, or whether you've jumped to that conclusion just because she was Irish.

[Pengwen]

Its ridiculous that flight & cabin crew are subject to the same restrictions on the carriage of liquids & gels as passengers - what is the point of having an ID?!
I think any operating crew member could do a damn sight more damage with the crash axe & BCF than with the amount of explosive that could be contained in a toothpaste tube. I'd love to meet the muppets who dream up these regulations.

[FullWings]

Maybe we should all be issued with a gun to shoot the other pilot with, along the lines of a nuclear missile launch facility. We could change the FBW software so that both guys flying have to make similar inputs on the controls for the aeroplane to obey them... :rolleyes:

This is all about trust and if you don't trust the pilots, who DO you trust?

[Oblaaspop]

Folks, consider this:
Mr Terrorist has your family hostage with guns to their heads, and tells you to take 'contact lens fluid' and 'toothpaste' with you through security, and deposit it in the cistern of trap 4 in the Departures bog of terminal 3 for one of his mates to pick up, mix, and blow an aircraft up with.
OR
Take it through crew security, deposit it in a FOD bin or similar, for one of his baggage handler mates to pick up......
Food for thought huh??
While I completely agree that 90% of the security is completely ineffectual, I feel it is important to see the 'big picture' occasionally, and that maybe there is a reason for some of the seemingly crap rules!
And before someone says 'well done for giving the bad guys an idea' do you honestly think they haven't already thought of it?

[BusyB]

Oblaaspop,

You seem to have missed the point. Whats to stop the police, military or security having exactly the same threat and leaving something airside. They don't get searched the same.:ugh:

[Oblaaspop]

True, they don't.

However, whether we like it or not, we are JUST civillians that happen to ware a uniform, they are not!

You say I'm missing the point, but surely you must admit that I DO at least have a point?????

[X_class]

BusyB

An alternative viewpoint would be that the police/security/etc should be given the same security screening as crew and passengers get.

Would that work for you ?

[Bangkokeasy]

I remember reading about the experiences of escaping POWs in WWII, who used to comment that they were always amazed at how much stock the Germans put on documents. If they were in apple pie order, they were usually home clear. We simply have to get away from this obsession with objects and back to people, if we are to have a chance of stopping the next outrage.

Although frustrating, it is great that, now flight crew are subjected to the same security as SLF, some changes might actually be made!

[northeast canuck]

I resent having to take my shoes off to go through security, especially when the airport refuses to provide separate security for air crew and we have to do it in front of the passengers.

I think that all pilots in the UK should choose a date and refuse to take our shoes off. Watch how quickly the whole house of cards falls down and the system grinds to a halt. Maybe then someone at the DfT could explain to us why our shoes are so dangerous.

[BusyB]

X Class,

If the reason we are being searched IS security then yes, they should all be searched similarly. However, if the reason we are being searched is unnecessary bloodymindedness then aircrew should be treated as police/security etc.:rolleyes:

[max_cont]

Globaliser Don’t kid yourself. Anne Murphy was well known to the security services since her boyfriend was a known player.
In a previous role back in those days I would have pulled Miss Murphy for a close look simply for that fact. Profiling was used then and I’d be surprised if it wasn’t in use today.

Oblaaspop We are not civilians by dint of our training and role in the industry. It’s true we are not the armed service or police service, but neither is airport security. Just because one has some training and puts a uniform on does not make one impervious to being an ally to the extremists.

IMO Pilots are not above suspicion, but equally are not the ideal candidates as some would have you believe to be blackmailed into becoming mules. If a plan is too complex the more chance it has to fail. Especially if some of the participants are being forced. It’s far easier to get a young radical to apply for a job as security and far more affective since he/she can be used for more than one job. Additionally they would have a greater understanding of the security setup at the airport where they work and would know how to exploit the weaknesses of the system…come to think of it wasn’t one of those recently rounded up a security guard at LHR?:ugh:

M_C

[DH121]

If my family are held hostage in the scenario you describe, I expect they will be murdered as soon as I leave for work. That would give the terrorists the best chance of avoiding capture. I have already decided that, should this happen, I'll contact the police at the first opportunity. I have also decided that I won't pay for my family to have a slight chance of survival with the lives of fifty other families.

Would it not be far less trouble to let the terrorist get a job in the catering company, if they haven’t already?

The hostage method is risky and needs lots of people, planning and coordination. It’s rather different to a bank robbery.

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

Has it been confirmed that one of the people picked up in the recent plot really was a Jet Airways ground employee.....?

[Oblaaspop]

I would like to say that most of us would do the same, I would! But that is a situation that none of us would like to be in, and who knows how we would react.

If human semantics was that simple, the security services (and I'm talking MI5 here not Winkey Wankey Tosspot Security Services LTD), would make us sign a form stating that we would all contact them immediately should that situation ever arise.

In the absence of such a form, I guess they will just have to cater for the lowest common denominator amongst us. (and do bare in mind, aircrew from any number of God awful, nasty little countries pass through UK airport security dozens of times a day).

Again, I'm not defending the new security measures, it affects me, and pisses me off as much as anyone else, however I'm just offering a different perspective.....:ok:

[Symbian]

Maybe its time to stop spouting off and write a letter to your MP as I believe the D of T would have to respond. There’s the added benefit if we all do it they even might get as pissed of us we are, at having to reply to everyone’s MP:)

[Lord Lucan]

Quite frankly all you lot talking about crew's families being held hostage to force the pilot to crash his plane.... have been watching too many Holywood action movies.
...And then trying to justify the farce that passes for airport security with these arguments. Jeez!
The problem is that this is exactly the type of thinking that is behind current airport "security". And we have to live with the results (and lets not forget, the expense) everyday.

[chandlers dad]

True, they don't.
However, whether we like it or not, we are JUST civillians that happen to ware a uniform, they are not!

You say I'm missing the point, but surely you must admit that I DO at least have a point?????

Excuse me! Everyone is a civilian when it comes down to it! Having a badge or wearing a uniform means nothing as none of them are searched in the manner that we are on a daily basis. In actuality they are less secure than we are!

What makes them special? They have training and so do we. Trained on weapons, well many of us were as well while in the military. I still have the Expert badge that I earned with both the rifle and pistol on the range. Would go up against any police marksman on the range anytime. Why are they special?

You do have a point. .000001% of the flight crew might waffle and take a tube of toothpaste or the like into the secure area for someone. That is why the crew needs to have at least random searches. Please tell me what is to stop one of the security staff, who undergo NO searches, from smuggling something into the terminal? Same for the police and so on.

Right now I can go on Ebay, buy a badge, go to a costume shop and buy or rent a policeman's uniform and cobble up something that is close enough to get me in some if not most secure areas.

Before you scoff at this, look here:

http://cgi.ebay.com/PRESTON-BOROUGH-POLICE-QUEENS-CROWN-HAT-BADGE_W0QQitemZ150024039479QQihZ005QQcategoryZ929QQrdZ1QQcmd ZViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.com/Metro-Police-Badge-Hat-Emblem-Metropolitan-EIIR_W0QQitemZ140020362257QQihZ004QQcategoryZ929QQrdZ1QQcmdZ ViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.com/Metropolitan-Police-New-Scotland-Yard-Patch-Badge_W0QQitemZ270020396506QQihZ017QQcategoryZ69619QQrdZ1QQc mdZViewItem

http://cgi.ebay.com/British-ROYAL-MILITARY-POLICE-STAFF-SGT-UNIFORM-VISOR_W0QQitemZ300019694596QQihZ020QQcategoryZ135QQrdZ1QQcmd ZViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.com/Royal-Military-Police-WO1-RSM-No1-Dress-Uniform-RMP_W0QQitemZ180020667428QQihZ008QQcategoryZ67580QQrdZ1QQcmd ZViewItem
http://www.uniwearonline.com/index.php/cPath/34?osCsid=e066732f5476321d5fa6641d8c188e1b
http://www.arslan.com/policeuniform.htm
http://www.uniformsbypark.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=1&Category_Code=4

Yes, some of the above are an older style of badges or military uniform. You think that someone who is not a policeman would realize this? In America we have the National Guard roaming the terminals. Getting a guard uniform is so easy, and making a duplicate of their ID is not difficult. Please tell me what I am missing here that makes some trust the police/army so much? They are never searched and we are! Just who is more secure?

If our family were being held hostage, the rest of us would call the police and stop the whole event from happening.

LL is correct, this is more a Hollywood movie fantasy than a real chance of happening. Dh121 is correct as well. Excuse me, they are talking about blowing up an ENTIRE AIRLINER FULL OF INNOCENT PEOPLE and you think that they are going to let your family go out of the "goodness of their heart"???? They have no compassion or heart and are willing to die for their sick religion.

[Desperate]

There was never a suggestion that Anne Murphy was 'turned' into trying to blow up the El Al flight out of LHR, as some fantasists on this site would love to believe. She was a pregnant, naive Irish woman who was duped by her terrorist boyfriend Nizar Hindawi. As has already been stated, she was caught by excellent profiling. And that was in 1986.

There is no reason why professional pilots are any more likely to be 'turned' (or to suddenly get a taste for a quick 'jihad' on the LHR-AMS) that the airport Police, security staff or caterers. Given the ethnic make up of the latter two groups at LHR, I'm not so sure actually. Forget about family hostage taking - it's Hollywood stuff plus the occasional organised criminal bank robbery. Focus on the ideology and those likely to sympathise/empathise with it.

It's clear that many of the posters on Pprune haven't a clue about what really happens airside, once a crew gets through security. Don't forget that the cabin crew who've just been relieved of their lipsticks are now responsible for a security search of the entire cabin, while my external walk-round is as much a security matter as a 'what's fallen off' examination.

My signature on the final security form should clearly count for something. If it means that I'm satisfied the aircraft is safe for the 200 pax to board, please allow me to decide if my toothpaste and deodorant are also safe.

[On-MarkBob]

I think most of us agree that a pilot could crash his aircraft at almost any time he likes, and no amount of examining peoples shoes is going to stop that from being a possibility. What concerns me is the intelligence of the people that think otherwise! Thus with the level of intelligence currently shown by the security, the terrorists don't have to be too bright either. What we need is some intelligent people in the security making some intelligent decisions.

Bob

[judge11]

BALPA calls for stakeholders' summit - well,, is it going to happen or is this just more hot air?:{

[Globaliser]

She was a pregnant, naive Irish woman who was duped by her terrorist boyfriend Nizar Hindawi. As has already been stated, she was caught by excellent profiling. And that was in 1986.I'm not sure this is really "profiling". If she was pulled because she was known to be the girlfriend of a known player, that is classic "intelligence".

[Carnage Matey!]

She was pulled because she was travelling alone, pregnant, not really sure what she was going to do when she got to Tel Aviv and didn't have the kind of contact details for the other end that you would expect of someone on that kind of visit. Classic profiling.

[Globaliser]

Thanks for that. Although it does now leave me completely confused as to whether she was detected because she was known, or because she was profiled, or because she couldn't answer any questions straight.

[Danny]

Globaliser, that's just it... profiling is a combination of all three. A proper security agency would have access to the proper intelligence sources to keep them up to date with known attempts or individuals and their properly trained profilers would be able to ask the right questions based on their observations and build on that from the answers given.

In the case above, the girl was unwittingly carrying a bomb given to her by her terrorist boyfriend. He wasn't really her boyfriend but was duped by Nizar Hindawi who was a Syrian agent who saw an opportunity to befriend a naive and vulnerable young woman. This was a classic operation by the Syrians to blow up an El Al plane. Nizar Hindawi wasn't going to be on the plane himself, obviously, and it was through the classic profiling (questioning and observing) that El Al security uncovered this plot at the last minute.

As she was questioned by El Al security (profiler) it became increasingly obvious that she needed further investigation. Who purchased her ticket and how? Why wasn't the person who purchased her ticket travelling with her? What was her boyfriends name and where did he live? Who would be meeting her in Tel Aviv and where would she be staying? So on and so forth and as it became increasingly clear that it did not all add up the thorough search revealed the bomb hidden in the lining of the suitcase.

Now, compare that with the hired security person on little more than minimum wage who is employed to check your passport and ticket before you check in for most long haul flights these days. I know for a fact that they are unable to spot a ticket with a different surname than the one in the passport. Something that basic shows how pathetic the current system is. I had to point out to the security person that the name had been changed after marriage and that the change was actually noted on a different page in the passport!

[A and C]

Just like Judge 11 I would like to know when BALPA plans to have a meeting with the DfT "security department".

The DfT clearly has not a clue as to what is going on at the coalface and they should see this meeting with BALPA as an opportuity to improve security, they could start by having the less focus on the aircrew and using the staff at other locations.

It is in my interest to have 100% security but taking the pilots toothpaste and shower gel is not a good use of security staff manpower.

[FlapsOne]

I'm sure Balpa will now have this meeting just as soon as DfT agree to it. I don't think Balpa or anyone else actually has power to dictate when such a meeting would take place.

The main thrust must be that it takes place as soon as possible.

Personally I am totally fed up with my professional and security status being trashed on a daily basis whilst hackney cab drivers are given freedom to drive and park anywhere they like.

Something has got to change, and the time is about right. We have all put up with this cr@p for far too long!

[Man Flex]

There is always one individual who is responsible for making policy. In this case whether it is Mr Reid or someone at the DoT/BAA can we please have his name so we can ALL write to him and tell him what an a**hole he is!!! :*

[ShotOne]

As you say, Danny, classic profiling. Regrettably there is zero chance of anything like that taking place in a UK airport as the staff will be far too busy x raying the Captain's shoes and confiscating his pen.

Best of luck BALPA in trying top get this summit off the ground. We need to support them -can those who have posted here write to their MP's.

...and, never thought I'd say this but well done O'Leary! Why is he the only airline boss fighting his corner If lipstick or pens are really so lethal how come you can carry 10,000 of them on a bus or train?

[old,not bold]

There is no doubt that Israel's El Al airlines has never suffered a hijacking.

Nor have hundreds of other airlines in the world, so that doesn't prove much, does it?

Remember the story about the man who spread elephant powder in his garden in Clapham? Never had any elephants trampling around since then, so that proved the powder worked.

I have been "profiled" many times by El Al on the way to Tel Aviv, and I can vouch for the absurdity of the process as practised by El Al. An aggressive youth asks stupid questions and never, ever realises that the answers are a wind-up.

Profiling might be a useful weapon against airborne attacks. But can we please stop thinking that the Israelis do things well? They don't.

[Bearcat]

agree with a lot of points.....me thinks lhr security enjoy purposely going thru the capts bags....my brief case was opened and pages taken out of folders the other day, tablets questioned in front of ccm's....hand cream snatched off me...yet they say well put it in your case which is (going in the hold) and we are quits....i was seething.....my body language screamed W@NKERS at them...this is no way to go to work.

Its a joke.....what are crew going to do....shake the colgate and set a bomb off? What security should do though is take away the side stick and control column and every one is safe.....

joke....joke....joke.....PATHETIC.

I hate O'Leary and what he stands for but he is right....very right

[Chimbu chuckles]

O'leary has the sh1ts because security is forcing him to fill his holds, and slow his turn arounds down/employ people to actually put baggage in the hold, while at the same time he cannot charge passengers for it.:hmm:

That being said at least he is hilighting the absurdity of current security measures so that is not all bad.

If there is one thing that should unite all aircrew and threaten industrial action this is it...obscene waste of resources that achieves precisely nothing...nothing positive anyway.

[Pilot Pete]

My F/O had is Lypsil confiscated the other day. I pointed out to the security staff how pleased I was that he now wouldn't be able to use it against me.....we both saw the funny side.;)

PP

[Mick Stability]

If there’s one thing that this problem is, it’s that it’s worldwide. We need to achieve different treatment for pilots that recognises our unique position as front line guardians of safety and not convenient objects of ridicule and humiliation, or subject to the whimsical interpretation of rules by any and every security official.

We could start by raising the profile of our profession in the press and media.

What about an international day of action where we all demonstrate? Marches in London, NY, Brussels etc all coordinated to tell the World that we’re fed up? Surely at least it would send that message that we’re not going to bend over and take it without a fight.:ugh:

[Bangkokeasy]

Change is only going to be achieved, when the basic approach taken to security at airports itself is changed. At the moment, security as undertaken by BAA (or any other company for that matter), is done on the basis of a trade off between cost and risk. You may say that this will always be the case, whether this is in the public sector, or private, which is true. However, the clue is the nature of the risk and how it is perceived. In the private sector, the risk is defined by the threat not to lives, but to the company's position, should security fail. If in the public sector, the risk is, again, not to lives, but to the government's election prospects, should security fail. Therefore, there will always be a cost vs risk argument, but I would much rather see the public sector option, where the millions of inconvenienced people, pilots, airport workers, etc, even SLF, are able to vote the people responsible out of office, rather than the current situation.

[winkle]

got to run the gauntlet at MAN not been thru there since the "troubles" any tips on how to get thru a very minty toothpaste and some very powerful deodarant. its only a night stop.

:confused:

[rudolf]

Latest at MAN is no food containing gravy, sauce, beans, mushy peas etc. allowed through the crew channel. Damn, I'll have to leave my exploding beans at home in future! This is getting ridiculous, wonder if it is from the DfT or just Manchester making it up as usual!

[Stall Horn]

Latest at MAN is no food containing gravy, sauce, beans, mushy peas etc. allowed through the crew channel. Damn, I'll have to leave my exploding beans at home in future! This is getting ridiculous, wonder if it is from the DfT or just Manchester making it up as usual!


In response to a letter I sent to BALPA a little while ago, (thread here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=238656&page=21) Msg 406 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2775328&postcount=406)), Capt Mervyn Grimshaw (BALPA Chairman) was kind enough to make a personal resonse to me.

In it, he concluded:


Now that we are in possession of further information, although it remains the case that very little has sufficient detail be meaningful (date, time airport, RZ entry place, names etc), we have raised further concerns. If these are not addressed of course we demand to discuss this with the Secretary of State.

On this basis, I would urge you all to make reports of specific incidents like the above from "Rudolf", directly to BALPA - including sufficient detail to make the report meaningful:

I would suggest a point of contact may be as follows?

Carolyn Evans
Head, Flight Safety Department
The British Air Line Pilots Association
Telephone: +44 (0) 20 8476 4000
Fax: +44 (0) 20 8476 4077
Mobile: +44 (0) 7798567412
E-mail: [email protected]
BALPA Legal Protection for members
Emergency Helpline: +44 (0)208 476 4099 Legal Advice Line: +44 (0)208 476 4082
http://www.balpa.org/

[rudolf]

I will grab a copy of the memo from Manchester Security and forward it to BALPA tomorrow.

[Globaliser]

Globaliser, that's just it... profiling is a combination of all three. A proper security agency would have access to the proper intelligence sources to keep them up to date with known attempts or individuals and their properly trained profilers would be able to ask the right questions based on their observations and build on that from the answers given.Without descending into semantic arguments about how one would describe the three elements of the approach, I hope then that this type of approach can be distinguished - both in debate and in practice - from the concept of profiling which too many people seem to be baying for. The incident with the NW aircraft at AMS seems to provide a recent example of the latter.

[xetroV]

I am absolutely convinced that the current security fiasco is negatively affecting the "S" and "E" in "IMSAFE" (the well-known fit-for-flight checklist: Illness, Medication, Stress, Alchohol, Fatigue, Emotion). Therefore I wholeheartedly agree with Mick:

If there’s one thing that this problem is, it’s that it’s worldwide. We need to achieve different treatment for pilots that recognises our unique position as front line guardians of safety and not convenient objects of ridicule and humiliation, or subject to the whimsical interpretation of rules by any and every security official.

We could start by raising the profile of our profession in the press and media.

What about an international day of action where we all demonstrate? Marches in London, NY, Brussels etc all coordinated to tell the World that we’re fed up? Surely at least it would send that message that we’re not going to bend over and take it without a fight.:ugh:
We need to convey this message to the rulemakers, and we need to show the stupidity of it all. Once upon a time, safety was supposed to be paramount; I'd like to think it still is.

[Nasi Lemak]

Operated through LHR twice recently. First time, we experienced the full no hand baggage, cabin crew lippie to be in checked bags etc. A week later things were a bit calmer- nav bag and mobile phone allowed on board.

Reading the local press, there seemed to be some major inconsistencies between UK airports. While Heathrow was banning lip gloss, Birmingham had no problem with lippie of any kind, but were not allowing gel bras, on pilots or pax. (It was a female pilot who complained - just thought I'd make that clear).

So - my questions are - how did the Birmingham security staff decide who was wearing a gel bra - what did they do about it if they found one, and how do I apply for a job .....no, sorry, delete that last part :O

But seriously - if anyone had plans to attack an aircraft, all they had to do was read the press to establish which airport was looking for which substance. Why the inconsistencies??? And who came up with the idea of gel bras being a threat?????

[highcirrus]

I sent the following letter to a UK national newspaper a day or so ago. So far no notification of publication. Perhaps if we all sent similar ones plus copies to local MP's, the word might filter through. The "certain UK airport" was, of course, Manchester, where they do indeed seem to make it up as they go along!

Sir

Present day life is certainly full of irony. I very recently commanded an international flight from a certain UK airport to a destination in Southeast Asia and as the now standard prelude to gaining airside and the aircraft, in preparation for flight, ran the gamut of screening by employees of the contract security company currently engaged by the particular airport.

In line with phlegmatic and what looked like long resigned local flight crews of other airlines, I trooped sans belt and shoes through the metal detector in neat formation with my single piece of baggage during its journey through its own metal/explosives detector.

Inevitably, the aerosol canister of shaving foam, the tube of toothpaste and the small bottle of prescription eye drops stowed in the wash-bag that accompanies me on my world-wide travels became evident on the machine’s screen and a well oiled procedure then swung into effect whereby I was deprived of the items by a polite but firm operative who explained that he was just following orders when queried as to how exactly such a deprivation would contribute to the overall security of the flight shortly to be taken by 300 passengers in a multi-million dollar aircraft, the overall safety of which I was directly responsible for.

The exchange saw my bag, replete with banned items, consigned to the aircraft hold rather than accompanying me to the flight deck.

The ironies underlying this by now commonplace tale are that such “nonsensical” (cf. Michael O’Leary, CEO Ryanair) bureaucratic and pointless gestures, on the part of authority, in the name of “security” now seem only to be taken to such absurd lengths in UK and USA – the two nations in the front line of “the war on terror” - and which conclusion results from a work pattern that takes me into contact with the highly professional airport security systems of many other countries that do not see the need for the idiocy described.

Similarly, in common with thousands of industry colleagues, my own background (40 years professional military and heavy-jet air transport flying) has been vetted over the decades by regulatory authorities as part of the professional licencing system and by companies as part of the employment process and both of which are attested to by the production to lawful authority of a professional pilot licence and the now sophisticated company ID card. Ironically, it is doubtful that our watchers and vettors have such attested background.

Of final irony, of course, is that my polite but firm and no doubt temporarily employed security adjudicator, of shaven head and full beard countenance, was from the very UK multicultural ethnic community, an extremist minority of which, has caused the past, current and no doubt future terror furors in the industry. Plus ça change!

[omnidirectional737]

My night stop bag complete with deodorent, toothpaste, shampoo etc managed to get through the xray at LGW with out any trouble only to be told the next day in GLA that it could not accompany me to the aircraft, but I could retrieve it once it arrived at the aircraft side. What is the POINT!:ugh:

[Anotherpost75]

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article_images/articledir_49/24758/1_fullsize.png
Did you pack your bomb yourself, Sir?

[BRAKES HOT]

i mean confiscating eyedrops? ffs. this happened to me. just try and explain you have two engine fire push buttons, 60 tons of jet A1 and a fireaxe.......do they really think i'm into self harming? :mad:

[NWT]

It is plainly obvious that the security checks are mainly for show. As previous posts have said we need to be sensible with the security but spend more time looking at the person. The days of 'obvious' looking terrorist are gone. Taking lip balm of a pilot is just silly. But I guess one rule for all....Th BAA and other security companies can check passengers and crew and staff as much as they want, but if one of their own staff with full airside access is in on 'the plot' then the whole security aspect is a waste of time. Do you really believe that every single tube of toothpaste, every single tob of lip gloss etc is individually inspected before being bought to airside to be sold a inflated cost to passengers who have just had thiers confiscated...? dream on....I cant bring my knife and fork into work for me to each my lunch with, but I can carry a leatherman, and a full box of tools that includes a dangerously sharp stanley knife and hacksaw, because they are tools of the trade...what a farce...and we had to ditch our steel toe capped safety shoes earlier in the year beacuse it was causing to much work for the poor darlings in seurity who had to actually frisk us because the alarm went off. So we all bought carbon fibre capped boots at the insistance of the BAA. Now we have a safety shoe which most people find more uncumfortable, and will now still have to remove them each time. I have gone back to my steel cap. Don't suppose the BAA will reimburse me for the expense of buying the carbon fire one will it.....

[Moderate Man]

As a long serving pilot I share the frustration of fellow pilots expressed here. While trying to do my job as safely and well as possible I have extracted the maximum humour from the current security situation. Also I would comment that the crew security people at LGW have been unfailingly courteous, to me at least. And I make sure I have no holes in my socks!
However, as pilots we should be be calm logical and reasonable. We have to try to understand the rationale behind what is happening, and if we don’t like it produce counter arguments. The point has been made repeatedly that people in charge feel they must be seen to be doing something, however futile it is in reality, and I agree with that criticism. I agree with Danny’s detailed support for psychological profiling. There might be some grounds for suggesting weaknesses perhaps. Supposing in the queue there is an unlikely looking elderly grandmother who does not know she is carrying something dangerous. The over-riding point is probably that we should be making the best use of resources, and realise that perfect safety is never achievable.
The biggest point in my view is that we as pilots and critics should address the scenario posed by Oblaaspop. (His post was dated/timed 5Aug06/07:36) I am pretty sure that this is what the security bosses have in mind when they insist on on no cosmetics liquids etc for us. I am not saying I am supportive of the regulations, I am merely saying that if we criticise then we must deal with the thinking behind the regulations. My comment would be that those members of crew who found themselves able to think calmly and logically would realise that trusting “Mr Terrorist” to do the right thing by your family would be unwise and phoning the police immediately would be best. If “Mr Terrorist” targetted a crew member lower down the intelligence ladder wouldn’t “Mr Terrorist” be taking quite a big risk that something might go wrong. The chosen silly crew member might give things away by having a nervous demeanour, or might put the forbidden article in the wrong place. What do others think? There could be additional arguments against gving more or complete exemption to pilots. Supposing some dubious looking pilots turn up at crew security to fly their executive jet to some equally dubious country. Perhaps their jet is parked next to your jet and they have an arrangement with a ‘sleeper’ cleaner. On the other hand we are fairly sure that the police and security people have had considerable success at forestalling some terrorist activity. That success was achieved surely by their equivalent to ‘profiling’, that is using intelligence, clues, infiltration etc. So we all go through Staff Security as usual, and most of us get an easy time. If something suspicious is happening like the the dubious executive jet pilots going through Security then Security experts at a higher level pass the word to the checking staff to give the dubious pilots a very thorough check. I think that is a better approach, but I need to hear all the arguments.
I think MrBernoulli’s points are completely inappropriate and have been dealt with fully by others. The ‘counterfeit’ crew-member argument is significant but surely sufficiently thorough ID card procedures could deal with that. I don’t mind a machine checking my eyeballs to see if it really is me! For me the argument that remains is how to view the Oblaaspop scenario,

[stator vane]

i overheard some of the security people the other day and one declared like a preacher that they could allow marmite since it was a spread (whilst making a spreading motion with her hands to illustrate to her colleague) but "i took his yogurt because it is a liquid!" she had such a look of accomplishment.

i was so surprized but thought it useless to ask or say anything. you get a group of security people together and there is no chance of a level playing field dialogue.

a few days earlier, i had asked them if i could bring my own evian water rather than use the water on the aircraft. i suggested that i could open it and take a drink to show them that it was indeed water.

then you could see the light bulb come on in the head of one whilst his face light up with supposed intelligence with his clever answer--"well if you were a terrorist, you wouldn't mind drinking something that was going to kill you in a few minutes!"

i guess he didn't notice the four bars over my shoulders. i wouldn't need anything to cause all sorts of havock if i were in the mind to.

[Charles Darwin]

............................:mad:

[ExSimGuy]

Noted the comment earlier:
but security sources have endorsed information coming out of the US as accurate

Haven't we heard this a few years ago when Bliar was "justifying" following His Master's decision to invade Iraq? Once again, it's starting to loook as if "there was definitely something, but we have't found it yet".

One really wonders about our "leadership" (probably still luxuriating in warmer climes, waiting until air travel becomes less hassle before returning home:mad:)

On the subject of keys. could I suggest that in many cases you could obtain a car key - just a plane copy-cut one, froma local lock shop? I know that some cars have a very sophisticated system that sets off the alarm if a "plain key" is used, but with most, the "electronic key" is just a convenience and a plain old-fasioned key will work just as well, and won't terrify the security guys.

[benhurr]

Positioned through EMA on Tuesday and had to give up my cigarette lighter. went into the smoking section and some people still had lighters which was quite fortunate as the shops had sold out of matches.

Surely if cigarette lighters are such a threat then they would have a security person in the smoking area taking them off people?

Keys are not a problem - nor are ANR headsets fortunately for me!

[Ausbus]

I flew out of LGW last weekend and had a bottle of water, my eyedrops, some muscular rub cream and moisturiser removed from my bag. When I informed the security agent I was the Captain he informed me that an entire Virgin crew were refused departure by police authorities for carrying such things. I think common sense has fled the minds of those that want to regulate safety! Can't we do something to stop this nonsense and bring back commonsense to this industry!

[Charles Darwin]

Noted the comment earlier:



On the subject of keys. could I suggest that in many cases you could obtain a car key - just a plane copy-cut one, froma local lock shop? I know that some cars have a very sophisticated system that sets off the alarm if a "plain key" is used, but with most, the "electronic key" is just a convenience and a plain old-fasioned key will work just as well, and won't terrify the security guys.

Many of the modern car keys are equipped with a microchip in the key, as a part of the anti-theft system. The car will not start without the precence of this chip. In these cases (more and more cars are so equipped) the electronic key is more than just a convenience.

Censored once again:
I think I will leave this forum for good, so will few of my colleagues. This forum is clearly NOT a place for free opinion.

[Desperate]

Balpa Calls for Stakeholders Summit

That was the original thread - two weeks and 136 postings ago.

Can anybody tell me what's happened since? Why are we pilots still treated like terrorists? And please, no re-runs of the uninformed drivel about family hostage-taking.

Come on BALPA, get this sorted out NOW.

Or maybe we should now decide to name the day when we'll all say enough is enough - no toothpaste - no fly.

[rudolf]

I have now sent a copy of the memo from Manchester Security about the restrictions on food being allowed through to BALPA. If anyone would like a copy please PM me, its absolute nonsense.

Rudolf

[lexxity]

Manchester are so busy pissing off airline staff, and by that I mean all of us, from check in to flight deck, they have lost sight of what they are supposed to be doing.

Two days ago I asked if a passenger on a MAN/LHR/KUL with two very small children could take calpol, I was told yes that's fine as long as she tastes it. Today I was called a liar by security in front of a pax for saying that they had ever allowed calpol through.
I know of two TCX engineers who weren't allowed to take their hot meals through before commencing work on two engines over night, and it has been very cold and wet up here.
An entire Monarch crew was made to have the full search, empty yer bags folks, this morning.
A child wasn't allowed to take a small violin onboard this morning, even though it actually fitted in the gauge.

I know this thread is supposed to be about staff problems, but by contradicting and introducing arbitrary rules on the spot it is making groundstaff's jobs a total nightmare. We are being made to look total fools and passengers are starting to get angry and we are getting it in the neck, all shift, every shift.

And then MAPLC has the barefaced cheek to ask our staff not to get angry with them when their lunch is confiscated for being a bit too runny. :mad: :mad:

[Man Flex]

So the lunatics are finally running the asylum...

Apparently the other day, one of our colleagues was stopped at airport security and ordered to surrender his spare contact lenses. The individual refused stating that it was a requirement of his licence and medical that he have such with him during his flight. The goons stated that if he did not surrender this item he would be arrested and removed from the security checkpoint by armed police!

What would you do?

[max_cont]

Refuse the request and await the circus…hopefully with full media attention.

Only when the idiots who dream up these idea’s are forced to confront the abject stupidity of their edicts will any semblance of rational decision making return to our industry.:ugh: :ugh:

[moist]

I have just spoken to the fueller that filled my 737 yesterday.
He said he was not allowed a boiled egg and a banana through security.
BUT 5 minutes later he was in charge of a c. 50,000 litre fuel bowser roaming through BHX, trusted and respected!
What f^&*in planet is the security species come from?
Moreover, the ministry that they all so blindly obey to???

Here's a letter I sent to BHX Security yesterday and a copy to BALPA:

Dear Mr XXX,

By now you have spoken to the XXX station manager XXXX regarding my unfortunate incident at the security gate.

I started working for XXXX as a captain in BHX in June 2005, I have always reported for duty with my thin briefcase and a small black rucksack in which I carry my food for the day.

On the day in question and for the first time ever, I was told that I am only allowed one piece of baggage. I protested against this in no uncertain terms and stated that I have always been coming through with these 2 items, including the day before.

Mr XXXX, the Blue Watch Team Leader said to me that I couldn't have possibly done so, as he was on duty there the day before! I said to him that I did take the 2 bags through, therefore he must not have been doing his job properly?

By this time I was on the phone to my company explaining that I am not allowed through security in order to access my rightful place of employment, which is a Boeing 737.
I also said to Mr XXXX that as far as I understand his duty is to prevent terrorism and not to stop people going through who have a valid security pass and are obviously trusted to work airside. Furthermore, I said that by concentrating on my rucksack, he is less able to prevent terrorism, as his attention is diverted on to me!
Then Mr XXXX came to me with a most bizzarre suggestion, saying that if I can put my rucksack into my briefcase, I then could go through!!! I couldn't believe this suggestion.
Firstly the rucksack would have not have fitted, secondly I thought well WHY??? Even if I did manage to do that, I would still be carrying the same number of atoms into work! I also felt that if I do comply, I would be allowing myself to become part in the same skewed un-reality that has descended upon us lately. I therefore refused that suggestion.
The problem was solved when one of our Cabin Crew has arrived for work with a large enough bag to be able to contain my small rucksack.
Before going through, we have exchanged details with Mr XXXX.

Yesterday, Tuesday the 29th, I came in again anticipating a problem, so I decided to pack a foldable holdall bag into my rucksack, in case I needed to put my two bags into one!!!
As I checked through security, the two people manning the post simply let me go through without mentioning a single word about my bags!! Just like every day, just like it has always been.

I have since seen the "rules" from the ministry and must say that I am amazed and extremely angry that we - Crew - are deemed to be a risk, like any old terrorist. The rules are absolute shambles. I still have access to a 50 ton aircraft full of fuel! I still have a crash axe in the cockpit. I don't need shoes, or some small amount of food to cause a major terrorist act! Indeed why would I bother in this security "atmosphere" to bring in anything that would turn me suspicious, had I had any skewed intent?
Why indeed is our "baggage" limited, when these limitations were placed on passengers, in order to be able to expedite their security checks. Why is there not an intelligent and workeable interpretation of a rule that is taylored for the passenger?

I know that you personally don't make the rules, you just simply follow them. However, I find huge inconsistencies in the security point daily, not just with myself, but members of my crew too. Curry is not allowed! Why, because it may explode? How? Why would it? Who would make it explode? Why does anyone need to explode curry, in order to bring us down? Remember, Cabin Crew have access to the flight deck and the crash axe is right by their feet when they stand there! They could also set fire to an oven for instance.

I realise that you may not be able to change the rules, but I think you might be in position to influence those that "made" this rule about curbing the crews' freedom. Tell them about me. Tell them about my argument and that I was let through again with the 2 bags yesterday.

Where do we go from here?
You see, if I am a suspect, then how come I am being let through at all?
If you let me in, then surely you are trusting me to be airside going about my business.
If you don't trust me, then please don't let me go through at all. But being let through "only just" is not acceptable.
That means that we are suspected of something, but allowed through with the benefit of the doubt! How "safe" is that?

Finally, could you confirm please that I will be allowed through the security point with one holdall containing my two pieces of baggage, if need be?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Capt XXXX

[Desperate]

Apparently the other day, one of our colleagues was stopped at airport security and ordered to surrender his spare contact lenses. The individual refused stating that it was a requirement of his licence and medical that he have such with him during his flight. The goons stated that if he did not surrender this item he would be arrested and removed from the security checkpoint by armed police!

What would you do?

Do not be intimidated by these people! You are not committing any offence, particularly while complying with the conditions of your licence. The entire flying community needs just this publicity, a hundred times a day, reported on every news program and every radio phone-in. Only then will this stupidity for aircrew stop. Rest assured, you will certainly not end up in court.

As has been previously mentioned, the raised stress levels generated by these encounters are not conducive to a safe operation. We should return to the crew rooms after such events, citing this stress as a reason not to fly until suitable recovered - an hour should do it.

On a recent early morning departure I was still fuming after just such a similar encounter at 'security' and completely missed a number of points during the preparation which fortunately my colleague (and the SOPs) rectified. Unprofessional, I admit, but we are all human and sooner or later these stressful encounters will kill.

We must make a stand, and soon. It seems that BALPA and the numerous airline CEOs affeced (not) are quite content to leave this on the back burner and 'not make a fuss'. I've got no time for O'Leary but at least he's had the b@lls to speak up, if only for the pax.

I don't recall hearing much from the CAA, either, regarding complying with the conditions of our licences re glasses/contact lenses.

So it's in our hands.

And it's time for a change. Come on you journalists - start printing some of these real-life encounters we have with 'security'. Maybe we can shame someone with influence to sort it out before we take matters into our own hands - within the law, of course.

[Stumpy1000]

This all appears to me to be the biggest Human Factors issue affecting crews in many a year. As we all now fully understand the concepts of HF and its contribution to aircraft incidents, as it is mandatory training for all of us, what is BALPA (full of so-called industry professionals who must understand the same concepts) going to do about it? We are all being exposed to a situation that goes directly against an international, governmental, legal mandate. When the first crash of a UK aircraft occurs because of an accumulation of factors, of which these crap security issues are one, will they (the government and BAA) conceed that we have had a 'blue on blue' long before we have had an 'orange on blue'? My reference to stats tells me that as many people (if not slightly more) have been killed on terrorist train attacks as aircraft attacks. I wasn't searched going into london by train either last week or yesterday!

[Anti-ice]

Enough is enough over some of these issues , and they HAVE to give some leeway to crew given the access we do have to various equipment items - and the plane itself :rolleyes: .........

At LHR, they are not allowing shorthaul crews to take any of the forbidden items on - NOR hold load them...

This means that thousands of crew are nightstopping with a completely empty washbag - oh, except for a dry stick deodarant - great :mad:

You need to look nice in this industry, AND feel confident too, but with no facewash,mosituriser,proper toothpaste,real deodorant,fragarance or even most of the girls makeup , and perhaps your own showergel/shampoo, most of the crew feel wretched.

Security are ruthless, and even if you try to take a 3ml sample of something, its removed.
It's ridiculous that highly paid security professionals are not finding a solution to this problem fast, and people are getting increasingly angry that they are denied the most basic of essentials.

I hope every emphasis is placed on this among others in the meeting, and they don't let us down much longer

[radeng]

As humble SLF, can't you guys, if refused admission with things necessary for the performance of your duties (arguably includes deodorants for CC, and certainly spare contact lenses) just report to the company that you're not allowed access to your aircraft with necessary equipment, and therefore the flight must be cancelled?
Especially if it's known that politicians or high up civil servants are due to be on the flight.
You'll get my support

[max_cont]

The short answer is yes…but we then have to answer to our various managers and believe me when I say we’d get no support from them.

An individual pilot would be putting his/her career on the line without the total support of the entire workforce.

The only thing that matters to airlines is that the flights go…period. If the Government came up with an edict that demanded the crews proceed through security stark naked our various companies would just issue a notice to crews telling us of the new procedures and instruct us to comply. Not one of them would demand sanity prevail.:mad:

All this would stop tomorrow if we the pilots and cc refused to fly under the present conditions…even for just one day. Our various companies would suddenly take note and so would the Government.

The only CEO with a pair that I’ve seen so far is MOL. But even he is only concerned with his profits and not his staff.

[Desperate]

i overheard some of the security people the other day and one declared like a preacher that they could allow marmite since it was a spread (whilst making a spreading motion with her hands to illustrate to her colleague) but "i took his yogurt because it is a liquid!" she had such a look of accomplishment.
Journalists - are you reading this? Then for God's sake start publishing. Should do wonders for Marmite sales, as well as highlight the abject stupidity we (professional pilots) are up against.

[Skyflier]

As a very frequent pax pardon my intrusion but you are the only people I think can make a difference. The current situation is intolerable to everyone who is affected. I've been threatened by the same security idiots that you are but I can do nothing other than not travel - something that is being looked at more seriously every day and a number of video conferences have already replaced short haul trips, not a good substitute but one I am growing more fond of every day.

Please guys, choose a day, stick together and when the nonsense starts on that day at security over your toothpaste, lens solutions and bag sizes, return to your crew rooms and stay there. It will only take a couple of days if you stick together with the cabin crew for the whole lot of nonsense to be overturned - the risk to the government of the airline industry shutting down will suddenly become much greater than the risk of any percieved security issues.

[Chuffer Chadley]

Splendid!

While we're on the subject of security, I was most heartened the other day to see the staff channel security chaps at MAN doing their jobs properly.

That's right! They took my highlighter pen off me! GEEEENIUS! To be honest, that was a lucky escape for all of our passengers. Who knows what might have happened had that little gadget got on board a Fokker 50?!

Previously, I have taken the view that the security screeners have a modestly difficult, and mildly unpleasant (at times) job to do, and the current regs are not their fault.

That's changed now. I challenged the plonker who took my pen, who said that, he was sorry, but was on the list of prohibited items. I challenged him again to show me the list... of course highlighters or anything like that don't feature.

Not to worry, all sorted out by a phone call to his 'team leader' (who I'm sure is also doing a magnificent job in tricky circumstances), confirmed that as the contents of the pen was water-based, it was verboten.

So let's get this straight:
- Pens not on any disallowed list that I have seen before or since.
- Pen clearly an innocent pen, and a natural thing for a pilot to have. Capt and FO (me!) agree, and politely make point to security staff.
- Pens of all types previously allowed on flights.
- Pen contents known to be water-based ink, therefore prohibited.
- Pen contents known to be water-based ink, and not an explosive substance. Therefore prohibited.

Splendid! Keep up the good work, chaps!

Bye!
CC

[Nov71]

Security has no discretion on prohibited items and should err on the side of caution.
The human body is 80% water-based with the bladder able to carry around 500ml of the near-pure stuff, supplemented by colonic irrigation and latex containers in other bodily orifices.
So why are they letting crew on to a/c, let alone pax?
A plane carries at least 2 tanks of water for the toilet apart from all those bottles in the galley. Why do we assume airside replenishment is 'safer'

[ContIgnt]

Security @ BHX took most of the night stop kit I've had in my bag for the last five years (and the last 3½ weeks) from me a few days ago. :D

They even tried to take the Ibuprofen tablets I had because they were 'gel capsules' !! :ugh:

As I was getting dressed again (in full view of the public of course), 4 'special branch' types walked though with no search, no card swipe, no nothing ... when I complained about this, I was told politely to mind my own business - they were exempt !!!

Apparently a CS gas spray is much more dangerous than a 500 mph Boeing ! :oh:

[hotmetal]

More stupidity at LHR. Purser had protein powder that you mix into a shake taken off her. Although clearly not a liquid it can be mixed with water to form a liquid. Jeez.
At a time when there is a genuine threat resources are being wasted on lunacy. The leaders cannot lead anymore. The captain has to just go along with whatever idiotic decision some dimwhit comes up with. No comeback. Why did I bother working hard years ago coming into this 'profession' to be ordered around by all the losers that spent their time messing around at school achieving nothing.

[fmgc]

My crew and I were on a trip in GLA the other day, but as we were not returning to GLA we had to take our overnight bags with us. These had to be checked in and put into the hold (ridiculous).

But on going through security at GLA (staff channel, down the corner at the end) one of the girls was stopped and told that she could not take her lipstick, one of the other security bods then corrected this securoty bod saying that things had changed since he was last on shift and lipstick was OK.

HOW THE HELL DOES A SECURITY GUARD GET ON SHIFT WITHOUT KNOWING THE RULE CHANGES?

Supposing the change in the rules had been a tightening rather then a relaxation then this chap would have been letting prohibited items through.

[blue nosed rigger]

OK. I know its esential and I know they're doing their best,BUT...
Has any one else tried to get the rules relaxed for airside staff,thats every body from cleaners to the dog that stops the pilots touching owt. I'm getting peed off with not haveing a decent meal on night shift,whats the first thing you see when you go into security,tea & coffee laid out WITH MILK.
All sorts of rumours going round DTV about wots happining to the 'confiscated stuff' and was the tower closing for lunch realy down to no staff or are they just as miffed.
A.L.A.E. & my MP are on the case,dont hold your breath tho.:}

[exloadie]

Loaders all over the country are relying on "handouts" of milk and juice we have to call in everyday to see what else has been added to the list of banned items.

[HZ123]

At BA I have been coming on shift regularly for the last 28 years not knowing what is going on. If you ask the managers they do not know either. Things will settle down in the near future and it seems a lot of you are getting to stressed out over this temporary glitch.

[hotmetal]

Security Announcement from Dept for Nonsensical Policies
It recently has come to the attention of the department that pilots are flying aircraft in the UK. It was previously thought that this was all done by computers nowadays with occasional intervention by air traffic control. Consequently with immediate effect pilots will be banned from the flightdecks of aircraft as previous restrictions on carriage of gel pens, highlighter, toothpaste etc. have become ineffective. An exemption will apply for the Airbus family of aircraft where it is not possible to disconnect the auto pilot.

[ShyTorque]

"Police in the UK are keeping watch on "thousands of people" who may be involved in terrorism, Scotland Yard's head of counter-terrorism says"

How many of them are aircrew?

Recently had a problem at my base airfield, before this latest exploding lemonade and toothpaste scare.

The security guard on the "airside" barrier, as usual checked my airfield ID card, airfield driving permit and "authorised car" sticker and he signed me in as normal. However, having done so he then began to question both myself and my car passenger, a freelance co-pilot, in great detail. I thought this strange because this particular guard had let me in (and out) dozens of times before without trouble and he must certainly have recognised me by sight.

I had full ID, including professional licence, passport, two forms of company photo ID, a photo driving licence, an airfield driving permit and a registered car displaying the required permit. My freelance co-pilot in the pasenger seat was, however, apparently hugely suspicious because he didn't have an airport or company plastic ID (how could he, by definition - his home airfield is a grass strip!). Despite my explanation, the guard said he couldn't go airside! I realised the guard just couldn't understand the concept of a freelance or visiting pilot.

I was getting nowhere. I asked him to speak to a supervisor on the intercom. He did and the supervisor concurred that we couldn't go in. I asked the guard to tell him I was authorised to use another method of airfield entry (which I described), where there is no personnel security check. I told him if my co-pilot couldn't go through this gate I would be obliged to go straight there and use that, or even a third perfectly legal and authorised method of entry, which I won't disclose here).

I think we went through two higher levels of management before they saw sense and let us through but our take off was delayed.

I know the guard was only trying to do his job but it seems there is a serious lack of education of staff.

The apparently increasing stupidities and inconsistencies of these security checks cause a lot of distraction and stress in the crews and THIS is just as big a threat to flight safety than the chance of someone coming on board with a lethal chemistry set in an aftershave bottle.

Surely, anyone in our circumstances wanting to gain unauthorised entry to an airfield which is surrounded by little more than chicken wire wouldn't go through a guarded gate!

A question: Having been given a "swipe" security pass, why do they insist on the security person now coming out and swiping the card for us? :ugh:

[hotmetal]

Several minutes were spent examining my hair wax in Germany recently. The idea of banning liquids is not that explosives can be made from hair gel and toothpaste, it is that other liquids could be disguised by carrying them in the toothpaste/shampoo containers. If it completely obvious to any sane individual that the product in the container is hair wax or whatever do we really have to spend ages umming and ahhing about whether it is OK. It is driving me nuts.

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

"Police in the UK are keeping watch on "thousands of people" who may be involved in terrorism, Scotland Yard's head of counter-terrorism says"
How many of them are aircrew?


Well, I know this is a little distant from the position in the UK, but Moroccan law enforcement has (according to some US media reports) just sprung a terrorism plot in that country, with 50-odd arrests, of which several were women, of whom two were wives of Royal Air Maroc pilots.

[spannersatcx]

ShyTorque - don't know where that was, but sounds to me that security got it right:eek:

You turn up with someone who has no airport ID and expect them to be let on? Not a chance.

There must be procedures in place to get temporary ID's or access, where I am you have to fill out a form minimum 3 days before planned visit (less in an AOG situation) that person should then presents photo ID (passport etc) and escorted at all times.

[LLuke]

I heard a rumor that the UK government is now lobbying/trying to make things European regarding the size of handluggage, gels and liquids.

Hope there is enough common sense to wait for the results of the ongoing British investigation whether there has been a real threat or not.

How things have changed -- I remember that in the past I didn't need to carry/wear an ID in AMS, ocassionally forgot it at home, and once got really annoyed when they forced me to wear it.

[ShyTorque]

ShyTorque - don't know where that was, but sounds to me that security got it right:eek:
You turn up with someone who has no airport ID and expect them to be let on? Not a chance.
There must be procedures in place to get temporary ID's or access, where I am you have to fill out a form minimum 3 days before planned visit (less in an AOG situation) that person should then presents photo ID (passport etc) and escorted at all times.

This was a private flight and not from the terminal. Visiting private pilots & their pax NOT required to provide an airport ID.

The problem comes when there is no standard procedure in place.

[blue up]

Am still waiting for a reply from the local security management about obvious and blatant breaches of DFT regulations BY THEIR OWN MANAGEMENT STAFF MEMBERS.
Any idea of a UK website etc where I can address my complaint direct to the DFT?

Btw. Cabin staff had hairspray cans confiscated but then allowed them to be taken by one of the handling agents and brought up to the aircraft door for the CS to collect. W.T.F?????:ugh:

[hotmetal]

I wonder if organising something a simple as a petition and presenting it with publicity would help?

[Desperate]

At least it's a start.

So far we're only preaching to the converted on this site and BALPA have done sweet f.a.

Why don't we append all the farcical events that have been posted on the threads covering this issue- you really couldn't make them up.

The DfT needs to realise it's 'got it wrong'.

[lexxity]

Maybe we should start copying these forums to the BBC, The Times, et al. Try and make them take notice. Although I can't believe that there are no journalists reading this particular fourm.

[A and C]

About 6 pages back I asked when BALPA was going to meet the people from the DfT to talk about this issue, I have still to find out when this meeting is to take place.

As this is the biggest issue to in a long time to hit the industry in a long time in terms of flight safety , HF and quality of life I for one want to know when the flight crew point of view is going to be put to the DfT

In the back of my mind I am starting to ask if the large sum that I pay each month is getting me any reprisentation ?

[birdonthewire]

Why do they bother checking crew anyway? In case we break into the cockpit?
Not exactly difficult to fly everyone into a hill (indeed many have done it without trying) with or without the aid of a lipgloss, yoghourt and deodorant as were taken off my cabin crew today (and that was just the boys..).
If I could bring the aircraft down with a yoghourt I wouldn't be working here, I can assure you!

[omnidirectional737]

About 6 pages back I asked when BALPA was going to meet the people from the DfT to talk about this issue, I have still to find out when this meeting is to take place.

As this is the biggest issue to in a long time to hit the industry in a long time in terms of flight safety , HF and quality of life I for one want to know when the flight crew point of view is going to be put to the DfT

In the back of my mind I am starting to ask if the large sum that I pay each month is getting me any reprisentation ?

On the BALPA website the press release is dated 18th August. What has happened since then? If BALPA cannot represent our views and get action from the decision makers on such an important issue then maybe we should vote with our wallets.

[jshg]

The public can sleep easier in their beds now knowing that when going through Crew Security in CWL last week the soles of my SOCKS were closely inspected by the Goon on duty - naturally my shoes were x rayed as well as I stood there in my uniform & ID.
The nightmare of positioning by air before/after duty requires great thought too - my flight bag is acceptable world wide except in the UK so has to go in the hold where it's at risk of loss or theft (or damage). Apart from the stupidity of it all my hold bag was lost once last year - one of my crew members lost hers twice in a week - so my subsequent flight could be delayed/cancelled as a result.
I know BALPA is working on this - I understand a meeting with TRANSEC or some such was scheduled for last Wednesday but don't know if it happened. We have to keep expressing our anger until TRANSEC is made to admit its folly. And why should UK passengers be only allowed a tiny cabin bag when elsewhere the world is (relatively) sane?

[Man Flex]

Rumour has it that the negotiations did not go well... Balpa apparently went in rather heavy handed and this had a negative effect.

[Superfly]

They won't be able to ignore us if we make ourselves heard via the proper channels. I am not saying PPRUNE hasn't got any impact but it is just a rumour forum.
If we all send a letter to BALPA saying enough is enough, then BALPA in turn will have enough material to make them realise the extent of discontent.
We have to start somewhere and get organized.

SF

[Desperate]

Thanks for the contact details MJ

May I suggest we make a start with this today - address and phone number as above. It's time we took this outside into the (un)real world.

We should also post any replies/conversations we have.

[A and C]

If as reported above the meeting between the DfT and BALPA did not go well I think the BALPA members should be told.

If the DfT will not listen to BALPA then it is time for more action via my MP or to use the people that this goverment is most eager to please....... the press!

[LD Max]

Rumour has it that the negotiations did not go well... Balpa apparently went in rather heavy handed and this had a negative effect.
Where was this reported?

[MaxReheat]

Lima - totally agree. Nominated day - complete system shutdown. It's the only way any progress on this debacle is going to be made.:D

[Seloco]

As a FF pax I read this thread with increasing concern. If a fraction of the comments on it are I true, I would now appear to be at greater risk from discombobulated flightcrew than I ever was from the fizzy pop brigade!

[blueplume]

Agree with much of what has been said, especially the fact that the airports make a fine distinction between the safety aspects and financial aspects. By the latter I mean the revenue generated by shops airside. What aspects of security are served by taking a pilot's or crewmember's soft drinks away when everyone is free to buy flammable liquids in glass bottles from duty-free which have been "vetted at source"? What does that mean? That a nameless person working in a factory has stood next to the drinks machine that puts the caps on? Whenver I ask this question there is either silence or the more usual "those are the rules" BS. The last time I looked security as a concept was introduced many decades ago to protect aircraft and crew from passengers who may have other ideas about flying from those of trained aircrew. There was never any suggestion in the early days that crews would even think about endangering an a/c or its occupants. Why are we now branded as public enemy no.1? 9/11 was not caused by pilots but by people posing as passengers with a bit of pilot training. Regardless of whether one is in charge of a 300 tonne a/c or a 5 tonne a/c, we know what to do with it because we've spent a great deal of time and money obtaining licences that authorize us to operate said a/c. The fact that the CAA takes money from pilots and engineers doesn't mean it is not essentially a national agency responsible for authorizing us to carry out our duties. As far as I'm concerned the govt. knows who I am and what I am doing with aeroplanes. I have provided personal details and references and a clean police record to obtain an airport pass. I and all other airport staff are very easily traceable if the airport authority wishes to find out who I am and where I have been.
Profiling is the way to go. Separate crew channels should be available at all airports. If the punters don't see what pilots or airport staff are allowed to "get away with" there won't be a perception by security staff that somehow there is a security breakdown if pilots and cabin crew are allowed to carry sandwiches and toothpaste. And if you could see (you probably do at your own airport) some of the Neanderthals that are employed at airports by private firms you would laugh if they weren't annoying you. These people wouldn't get jobs as doormen in sh*tty nightclubs because they're rubbish yet they are authorized to decide that a pilot is unsafe to fly pax around the country in busy airspace just because we carry overnight kits.

[NiteKos]

The day the dreaded "terrorist" finds a way of putting his semtex in a cigar tube and putting it where Mr " Papillon" stored his is the day that crew security will become very messy indeed!

The fact of the matter is where do you draw the line at security screening, the logical conclusion to the present policy is..never.

Bend over boys and girls welcome to the New World.

[skyclamp]

That's the day when no flights will leave the ground! :ugh:

[xetroV]

As a FF pax I read this thread with increasing concern. If a fraction of the comments on it are I true, I would now appear to be at greater risk from discombobulated flightcrew than I ever was from the fizzy pop brigade!
Spot on! It is pretty obvious that these 'farcical' security measures will achieve next to nothing when it comes to increasing security, but they will increase the likelyhood of crew errors. The first chapter of every human factors book shows us all how stress is cumulative, this is not rocket-science!

There's no doubt in my mind that these out-of-control 'security' checks are creating a serious safety hazard for our industry.

[Whalerider]

ATC staff going through security to go to work at a major London airport ;

Confiscated items include ; milk (for coffee / tea), toothpaste (mouth like a badgers bum at 0500 !), lipsalve, lipstick, microwavable meals if contain sauce ! - need I go on ?

When will this madness stop. Staff arrive at work with steam coming out of their ears - VERY conducive to flight safery.

Just who comes up with these idiotic rules ?

STEAMing of Gatwick

[birdonthewire]

I do heartedly agree with xetroV's point - as if we don't have enough hoops to jump though to get the aircraft off the ground.

I don't blame the bods in security- they're just paid to do a job on the orders of the muppets higher up.

However I would like to be left alone to do mine.

Pleasant as I try to be to them, it does get very grating to be pointlessly searched and put under suspicion day in day out. Going airside's not a good start to the day.

I see the basic argument to the Dft based around the bleeding obvious - if the crew want to take out the plane and pax they will -with or without the aid of a yoghourt - and no amount of 'security' will change that!:rolleyes:

[TDK mk2]

Had an interesting conversation with a 'compliance officer' at my home base BAA airport today. We operate up to five sectors followed by a nightstop and therefore have to check our overnight bags in. My question to the gentleman was: If our bags are tagged as crew bags the baggage handlers won't unload them (although they occasionally do which is highly inconvenient) and therefore at the end of the duty we have to retrieve them ourselves. We are then apparently in possession of contraband whilst airside. Given that other UK airport operators have stated that we can retrieve our checked in bags once airside at our discretion and what we do with them is our own business I asked what is BAAs position. This question was precipitated by the baggage handlers at our home BAA airport being told to prevent operating flight crews from retrieving their own bags from their own hold before flight or face consequences.

The gentleman from the BAA discussed my question with a collegue and then told me that we are permitted to retrieve our bags whenever we like but if we are caught taking them into the cabin we would be in serious trouble. So it seems that although we are all under suspicion of terrorist intentions we are expected to police each other and in the case of operating flight crews police ourselves against reentering our aircrafts cabin whilst in possession of what HM Government considers contraband. I'm frequently bemused when standing at staff search in my socks whilst the local police bypass security and proceed swiftly to serve and protect us all...

[Out Of Trim]

Hmmm.. It's not just Crew and ATC having to go through this farce! But, indeed all ground staff that work airside. It's a real pain for us all; with the restrictions on food etc.

However, it would appear that some items still make it through the xray without being discovered. The smokers stash lighters airside in hidden places and I've even seen hot meals containing sauce get through! So what is the point!

At some point we have to re-establish normal working practices for the UK airline industry by all possible means. Either they trust us all or,the UK industry fails..

edited after Final 3 Greens Comments - He had a point!

[snooky]

Let's get airports used as that, instead of shopping malls with aircraft attached.
Take out the shops and you have plenty of room for many more security scanners.
Then employ enough agents to man them. Travel returns to what it once was. Passengers take a reasonable amount of hand baggage if they want. No delays.
Pilots able to take whatever they need in the way of overnight kit.
Just a bit of sense instead of the present nonsense.
Maybe this would take a couple of years to achieve, and maybe a ticket would need to cost perhaps 10% more, but the overall travel experience would be hugely improved.
No matter how good in flight service is, round Europe half the journey time is spent at an appalling airport at present.

[Final 3 Greens]

At some point we have to re-establish normal working practices for this industry by all possible means. Either they trust us all or,the industry fails..


Out of trim, I have to disagree with the above quote, only because you use the word "industry", which suggests a global issue.

AFAIK this issue is limited to a small number of countries, of which the UK is one.

Travelling around Europe regularly (from a Southern Med base) it is very much business as usual in most places.

Whilst I understand your frustrations and concerns, the global system is self healing, so the rest of Europe will take up the slack on transfer pax and only the UK will suffer from these new rules.

Having just passed through Heathrow, having worked in the UK on Monday, I noticed that there seemed to be significantly less people in the terminal than usual at that time (of course it could be an anomaly) and the shop staff were saying how their sales had gone down recently.

Also, I was allowed through "security" and the gate with a duplicate boarding pass in the name of a female pax, when I am in fact a male :mad: I only noticed walking down the air bridge and decided to go back and sort it out.

Doesn't really stack up, does it?

[ChicoChico]

There seems to be so many conflicting rules/standards applied to flight crew in the UK I wonder if anyone has the definative answer to these questions:

Can a flightcrew member carry his suitcase into the flightdeck provided it is "liquid gel or paste free"?
If I have half my jepps in my rollaboard and half in my flightbag can I carry both in the flightdeck? (still liquid free of course)The information we are given seems to suggest that so long as we carry no liquids, all is well - however some crews have been told by company station services that NO rollaboards are allowed in the cabin period. This is in LHR BTW.

Of course I agree that it's all nonsense and any bonafide pilot should be able to carry whatever tools he needs to do the job. Positive ID is needed immediately for all cockpit crew. The technology has been around for quite a while. Once properly ID'ed we should be considered the same as Peace Officers.

Chico in Canada

[Blacksheep]

In the UK it is a criminal offence under the Air Navigation Order to attempt to interfere with a crew member in the performance of his duties. I'm waiting to see what happens when, as is almost inevitable, an irritated pilot eventually summons the police to have a security chap arrested for trying to stop him bringing the tools of his trade aboard. :suspect:

[A and C]

The whole thing is so stupid that this farce can only be to protect the goverment who can be seen to have done "something".

If you don't manage to get your bags on the outbound sector a crewmember has to make sure that the baggae loaders don't take the baggs away at your destination and then the baggs are taken into the cabin for the return flight, this is not in contravention of the rules for cabin baggage in Europe.

So what has been achived by the so called security clamp down?
As far as I can see the new measures have resulted in a reduction in security, the security in southern Europe is patchy to say the least and one of the cabin crew is now engaged in checking the crew baggs have not been removed from the aircraft and this is putting more pressure on the other cabin crew when a "person down" as they do there cabin security checks.

Now inbound to the UK my shower gel is no longer a security issue so the only extra protection for UK airlines is OUTBOUND from the UK because if the worst did happen the goverment can say "not my problem".

If the goverment was interested in real security ( rather than this posturing for the press) ALL airlines flying into the UK would have to impliment these security precautions at the airports of departure.

[A and C]

Please can you save me some time and quote the ANO ref for this.

[TooL8]

From CAP 393 (the ANO) PART 5 Operation of Aircraft

78 No person shall while in an aircraft:
(a) use any threatening, abusive or insulting words towards a member of the crew of the aircraft;
(b) behave in a threatening, abusive, insulting or disorderly manner towards a member of the crew of the aircraft; or
(c) intentionally interfere with the performance by a member of the crew of the aircraft of his duties.
78(c) is the only reference I can find in ANO relating to interfering with the crew. Notice it does state 'while in the aircraft' and presumably does not therefore include security checks off the acft.:(

[Desperate]

Transport Security and Contingencies Directorate
Department for Transport
5th Floor
Southside
105 Victoria Street
LONDON SW1E 6DT

T: 020 7944 2781
F: 020 7944 2170
email:[email protected]


A few days ago the contact details above were posted on a thread (UK Aviation Security Clampdown). For some inexplicable reason the thread has been moved to 'PAX & SLF' and remains there despite requests for its return.

I think these details ought to remain in a more prominent forum.

Phone/email/write to Transec now. They're responsible for implementing this nonsense.