Airport Security (Merged) - Effects on Crew/Staff [Archive] - Page 4

Piltdown Man

7th Sep 2006, 12:51

Not wanting to piss on your chips chaps, but such a move would not be possible as you are unable to take industrial action against the government and their proxies, ie. the MacJobsworth who work in security. Political action, yes - but we don't get a vote for a while yet. Such a move can only be taken against the employer.

However, if the people in Aviation Prevention (aka Security) make it so that we are unable to take appropriate items through the borders of their little empires, then the planes don't fly. Return to the Crew Room and make it your company's problem. And don't forget to tell the passengers why the flight was delayed and tell them to write to their MP to complain, because after all, they were only doing their job in Security!

Also, don't go easy on these people in areas away from their magic arches either . Their performance is generally woefully inadequate at the best of time by their stations, almost non-existent away. So bring to their attention loose items of fixtures and fittings left lying around the departure lounges (found large lump of metal last week) that can be used as weapons, tools left by workmen, etc. In fact, do your bit to help them do their job - and make sure that you get their name, and confirm it in writing. When they let up, maybe, but we are talking about security here, maybe you can let up! Security are my friends, but they don't seem to love me very much!

PM

Nick NOTOC

7th Sep 2006, 13:15

I fear that industrial action will at best hurt our company's. and thus fail to meet it's purpose. I hope BALPA can on the basis of good argument on our behalf make a change. I think we should feed BALPA with our complaints and suggestions. If this were to fall to deaf man's ears we may consider some form of action that would get the attention of the press (read public opinion) without causing harm to the indusrty. I can even think of a few actions that would possibly create a smile even.

Nick

DIY

7th Sep 2006, 13:19

Yes!!!!!!!!

Had my bottle of Tobasco sauce (three drops remaining) taken off me at staff security LGW yesterday.......... how am I going to be able to eat our crew food now.Well at least I feel better knowing that as a Tobascoless pilot I am no longer considered a threat to aviation.

prim2

7th Sep 2006, 13:29

Hmmmmm...our industry is crippled by high oil prices and the costs associated with these security processes and we are considering tipping ourselves over the edge with job action? Perhaps I am missing something, but I'd rather give up my Tabasco than my income.

Orion Man

7th Sep 2006, 13:41

Yes, BALPA should be threatening industrial action if only to put pressure on the idiots who have formulated these non-sensical measures. The threat of grinding aviation to halt should be enough to provoke a re-think.

Regards

Orion Man

silverelise

7th Sep 2006, 13:48

Why are we being subjected to all of this bull****? Can somebody tell me why it's really necessary?:bored:
What if you are not a pilot but a terrorist in disguise?
Security staff need to treat everyone equally that way they can go home from a hard day at work safe in the knowledge that the terrorist who drove his aeroplane into a school had bad breath and rotting gums.

Orion Man

7th Sep 2006, 13:53

What if you are not a pilot but a terrorist in disguise?

Umm, have you considered that pilots have to carry IDs granted after extensive vetting procedures that are swiped at security for authenticity ?

Regards

Orion Man

Dr Dave

7th Sep 2006, 14:08

Just a question from an ignorant, ground-based numpty about the numerous postings that I see suggesting that pilots should not be subject to security checks.

What about the scenario in which a pilot who is part of a plot carried a bomb through security because he/she is not searched, then passed it on to someone else on a different flight to detonate? Thus, security would have been breached in the worst possible way, but there would be no way to track down how this had happened. The pilot who smuggled the bomb through could thus do so again (and again, and again).

It seems to me, in my utter ignorance, that the security checks on flight crew might be to avoid this sort of event.

Am I way off the plot (apologies if so)?

Dr Dave

Orion Man

7th Sep 2006, 14:15

Pilots are not asking for exemption from security Dr Dave. We have no problem with walking through a metal detector and having our bags screened. That has been in place for donkeys years. What we do have a problem with is having things like toothpaste removed from us a hazard to aviation when we have the ultimate say on where the aeroplane we are flying ends up.

Regards

Orion Man

ceightoz

7th Sep 2006, 14:19

Oh~

Never make a question in front of "NATIONAL SECURITY" :{ .
Never mess up with two mighty dumbs on both side of the Atlantic.:D

Everything is matter of security.

but I wonder 'for what and for whom'

Do they really believe that we are safer than Sep 11?

Dr Dave

7th Sep 2006, 14:22

Orion Man

You might not be, but others have in various other recent threads. For example in a recent thread:

"18th August 2006, 19:18 #5
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."

And to reply to ceightoz, no we are clearly not safer, and the current arrangements are a farce. However, security is about risk management, not risk avoidance, and getting staff to go through security is an element of this management process. Other elements are, frankly, ridiculous.

Dr Dave

KC135777

7th Sep 2006, 14:32

Well, here in the states, they're pushing for a "trusted traveler" program. This will allow certain passengers (high time flyers, I'm sure) to bypass security and breeze their way thru. I'm not sure if they'll use retinal scanners, or thumbprint scanners, or what.

All I know is, if they don't get the crewmembers on this program...something is VERY wrong. For pilots (many who are current or ex-military- holding top secret security clearances--back and forth on deployments to the 'hot spots') NOT to be included in this program would really demonstrate how screwed up things are.

If we're NOT included, I will NEVER move to the front of the line (queue), if my van from the layover hotel is late. I will get in the back of the line and wait. If ALL pilots followed this technique, things might change.

Orion Man

7th Sep 2006, 14:38

I resent having to take my shoes off too for the record and traipse on a dirty unhygenic carpet.

And yes removing a bottle of ribena from a tanker driver is ridiculous also. I'd be more worried about the contents of his tanker wouldn't you ?

The point is the pilots are perfectly capable of bringing down an aeroplane without having to take a device on board.

Fine, screen our flight case and put us through a metal detector but the rest is nonsense. There is even an axe on the flight deck which the pilots have access to.

Puts it all in perspective doesn't it ?

Regards

Orion Man

Crossunder

7th Sep 2006, 14:44

Yes, yes and yes.
Another example of our excellent security measures;
As Copenhagen is considered "contaminated" (maybe they allow tabasco on board?), our passengers have to go through security at their destinaiton (in this case TRF in Norway). Fair enough, since they enter the CSRA through tax free shops, transit halls etc. Then for the interesting part; The crew, having parked the aircraft on a remote stand, leave all our belongings on board the aircraft, go inside the terminal to be scanned and checked (for tabasco jalapeños and sambal oelek - that **** is DANGEROUS!), and then we can return to our aircraft to do a security check/search. Because the aircraft is also contaminated... We search our own bags to see if we brought any bombs on board. We then take the bombs, knifes and RPGs (which we had forgotten all about by this time) and hand them over to our explosive ordnance demolition crew. They then tow the aircraft back to the normal stand. Way to go guys. Cleverly thought out way of wasting time and money... :mad:
So, to recap; yes, yes and yes.

Dr Dave

7th Sep 2006, 14:49

Orion Man

I agree that the ban on toothpaste (and indeed Ribena) is quite ridulous. However, if there is a genuine risk that a toothpaste tube could contain components for a bomb, which a pilot could pass on to someone else, is there any justification in allowing a pilot to carry that item through security?

Yes, pilots do have the capability to cause mayhem. However, it would inevitably be a suicide mission (right?), whereas an item carried through secirity could equip someone else to act on another plane. I suspect (though I don't know) that this is the issue. We know that there is very little we can actually do to prevent determined suicide bombers, but there is plenty that can be done to prevent (or at least make life difficult for) those who wish to perpetrate crimes without losing their own.

The bottle carried by the tanker driver - again, surely this is is risk management? Of course the fuel can be used as an explosive, but there is little that can be done about that - aircraft need fuel. However, the bottle could carry components for a liquid explosive, and that risk can be reduced.

I stress two things:
1. I don't agree at all with the current rules on prohibited items - they are a nonsense compared with the actual threat posed;
2. But, if they are to be applied, I think that there is some logic in risk management terms in applying them to everyone passing through the security cordon.

Dr Dave

Orion Man

7th Sep 2006, 15:02

Dr Dave,

You are starting to come up with some rather obscure what/if scenarios. How many pilots have you heard of that have assisted or committed acts of terrorism ? I can think of just one - the Russian Captain some years ago that committed suicide by crashing his aircraft with passengers on board. He didn't need a device to do so.

Have you thought about the shops selling liquids once you have passed security may have been infiltrated by terrorists ? You can come up with no end of potential scenarios.

Aviation, train travel, driving a car etc will never be totally fool-proof. All we are asking for is a little common sense.

Regards

Orion Man

Crossunder

7th Sep 2006, 15:07

... What about the scenario in which a pilot who is part of a plot carried a bomb through security because he/she is not searched, then passed it on to someone else on a different flight to detonate?...
Dr Dave
Why the h*** would any pilot take a bomb through security? That's just fantasy - something a politician could say just to fulfill a perverse need to conjure up ever more far-fetched scenarios in order to make himself look smart and keep kissing G. Bush's arse. Pilots are selected because we are NOT the terrorist kind of people. Can you mention even one example where a western pilot(s) have hi-jacked/bombed his/her own or other aircraft? If any pilots should be screened, it would have to be those from a now well-known and hightly publicised relogion/culture. Western people are not very inclined to blow themselves up for their gods or any other BS cause. Get real! Start selective screening and stop picking on the good guys here. Stop harassing old grandmothers and innocent families trying to bring baby toys and food/drink along for a long journey. Srart looking at the people and their behaviour - not their underwear and nail clippers.
Besides; pilots have more vested in the safety of their flight than do the security personnell still left ON GROUND. We're up there - they're still on Terra Firma. If anyone should be searched, it's the so-called security people. What kind of admission tests or thorough psychological profiles do they have to pass in order to get their jobs? Problably next to zero caompared to us pilots... :ugh:
As I see it, it's one-nil for the terrorists. They've got us all running scared and accusing each other of being a threat to society.

suasdaguna

7th Sep 2006, 15:08

have to say the ponti's in LHR securiy have given me a hard time recently....why? the have rifled my bag every time including taking pages out of plastic sheets. i look at them and my body language screams ars@holes..... what are they trying to achieve and I am in charge of a 85 ton jet full of juice outside the door. ....pathetic.:ugh:

speedtapeking

7th Sep 2006, 15:21

I read all these pilots - why should i take my shoes etc threads along with we have the axe etc. Well here's a thought.

Behind you in the security queue is the unsung heroe the lonely engineer. he goes through the same performance not once but probably 10 times a shift. He has no food airside due to security, he works for 12 hours on yor jets with no food/drink etc. Still feel safe?

why take his shoes off? ever weighed up his tool box? why does he need to smuggle a knife in with a box full of stanley knives etc but he carnt go to the chinky for his tea! Do you know of a reestaurant open in your average airport at 3am ? especially mid winter ?

And i will leave you with a thought. you worry about your shoes and argue you can bring the jet down. Well as you sleep at the dark end of the ramp is the lonely engineer. He can spend 12 hrs undoing bits on the jet and guarntee when you call rotate you dont and go straight off the end. But does anyone ever query what we do ? No. they are more worried about us bringing gravy in on our chips. The world is barking !

So remember you have one row on your way in then get fed and watered. there are others that have the performance day in day out multiple time with no food or water etc. dont forget the tug drivers, bag lads,dispatchers and the deadly engineer !! :D

chandlers dad

7th Sep 2006, 15:25

Will be transiting through LHR on BA in a few days to recover an aircraft stuck in Africa. Am flight crew but deadheading and will be in uniform, as is our company policy. Do not work for BA.

Anything new that I should know about carry-on baggage? Hope to be bringing one small briefcase sized bag onboard with a laptop & charger, licenses, passport, captains float, one Jepps book and charts and hopefully a few magazines and book to read. Nothing liquid or sharp (other than my wit, which they cannot take from me) or on the prohibited list.

Dr Dave

7th Sep 2006, 15:27

Come on chaps, get real. The one thing that we do know is that terrorists are devious. They have gone to enormous ends to get their plots to work. So, is it really out of the question that one of the groups wouldn't put forward a follower to fly for, say, a Middle Eastern airline so that they can act in exactly this way? If pilots were not subject to the same security as everyone else then this would be potentially successful, surely?

Of course, that pilot could take over the aircraft and commit another 9-11. However, aircraft need pilots, so there is little that can actually be done about that threat beyond the obvious. However, the scenario that I outlined, which is surely not so far-fetched given the nature of other atrocities, can be eliminated, and thus there is some logic in so-doing.

I stress that I do not agree with the current security arrangements - the risk of being killed in a terrorist incident in the UK in the last five years is about 1:5 million, which is tiny compared with other risks, and we are losing a huge amount to try to mitigate this, which is a nonsense. However, once a decision has been made that screening is necessary there is no logic in allowing a particular group to avoid it en mass, from a risk management perspective at least.

speedtapeking

7th Sep 2006, 15:28

dont forget the security men/women (noted at man) push in at front of the queue - were on duty we need to get through. who isnt? were dont all go in on our days off !
they walk through with shoes on not x rayed - were running securit we dont need to.
the best one. they take there meals through and put them below the desk (also caught them taking tins of soup and putting the under there desks not in the bins) when questioned - were not airside ! I though the moment you swipe your card and go through the door your airside? not when you physically set foot on the ramp?

I wont say which desk at man this is - I'm sure most of you charter guys will reconise it in the glass type terminal !

BOAC

7th Sep 2006, 15:29

My vote is :ok: - as long as your briefcase fits the size criteria. Otherwise unless you can get your ?handling agent? to pass you through as crew you will need to check it into the hold, in which case I recommend you empty it for safety:mad:

Captain Airclues

7th Sep 2006, 15:30

wiggy

7th Sep 2006, 15:30

once a decision has been made that screening is necessary there is no logic in allowing a particular group to avoid it en mass, from a risk management perspective at least.

And so Dr Dave, why aren't the police screened?

Orion Man

7th Sep 2006, 15:35

And carry guns Dr Dave ?

Regards

Orion Man

silverelise

7th Sep 2006, 17:32

Umm, have you considered that pilots have to carry IDs granted after extensive vetting procedures that are swiped at security for authenticity ?
Regards
Orion Man
Very good point well made. These terrorist types can make bombs out of toothpaste but can't fake an ID. :ok:

ChicoChico

7th Sep 2006, 18:40

Come on chaps, get real. The one thing that we do know is that terrorists are devious. They have gone to enormous ends to get their plots to work. So, is it really out of the question that one of the groups wouldn't put forward a follower to fly for, say, a Middle Eastern airline so that they can act in exactly this way? If pilots were not subject to the same security as everyone else then this would be potentially successful, surely?

Of course, that pilot could take over the aircraft and commit another 9-11. However, aircraft need pilots, so there is little that can actually be done about that threat beyond the obvious.
How about a secure photo/biometric ID cross checked against a datbase to ensure ligitimacy and a pilot goes to his workplace with his toothpaste, leatherman, pen , contact lens solution, oversized bag etc.

Dr. Dave, a middle eastern pilot who is a follower and is drafted to the cause will still not need any weapons so ANY amount of screening and/or restrictions will not stop him.

BTW has anyone of the deep-thinkers in UK security acknowledged that most arriving flights from around the worl have contraband in the cabin - can an arriving flight not be a problem???

regards Chico

chandlers dad

7th Sep 2006, 18:44

Size matters! It must fit in the new shoe-boxed sized "checking" container - there are oodles of staff pre-checking this sort of stuff just before you go through Security. If it doesn't fit (you can get away with carrying your laptop separately by hand it seems), back to check-in to get the bag put through as hold luggage.

Full details here (http://www.heathrowairport.com/portal/controller/dispatcher.jsp?CiID=fb9da11b4763d010VgnVCM10000036821c0a____&ChID=b0eba11b4763d010VgnVCM10000036821c0a____&Ct=B2C_CT_GENERAL&CtID=448c6a4c7f1b0010VgnVCM200000357e120a____&Ch=Security+control&ChPath=Home%5ELHR%5EAirport+Information%5ESecurity+control&ChIDPath=caf397dc2eb12010VgnVCM100000147e120a____^bde597dc2e b12010VgnVCM100000147e120a____^473797dc2eb12010VgnVCM1000001 47e120a____^b0eba11b4763d010VgnVCM10000036821c0a____).

Just measured it and the briefcase is exactly 45x35x16 cm. Exactly the size that BA is allowing for carryon items. The website says that I can take keys, cellphone and computer so will try it. Just hope that our local airport security is not making up their own rules that day.

This is the site that BA links to:
https://lfn.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/lfn.cfg/php/enduser/popup_adp.php?p_sid=I*ETQ8fi&p_lva=&p_li=&p_faqid=2355&p_created=1155215804&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfcm93X2NudD0 5JnBfcHJvZHM9JnBfY2F0cz0mcF9wdj0mcF9jdj0mcF9zZWFyY2hfdHlwZT1 hbnN3ZXJzLnNlYXJjaF9ubCZwX3BhZ2U9MQ**

silverelise

7th Sep 2006, 19:16

I flew BA to Orlando from LGW two weekends ago and BA have used bits of wood to modify their cabin-baggage-size-checking-things which are dotted around the checkin area so you can see if you can squeeze your carry-on in to those.

I'd highly recommend checking in online as the checkin queues were huge - the bag drop queues were much smaller.

On the day I was there it seemed that handbags were causing many of the delays because the "one piece of carry on" was being strictly enforced - many women desparately trying to shoehorn their handbags into their handluggage etc.

Cellphones, cameras etc. were all OK you just had to switch them on and show they worked.

Incidentally security was equally as tight at Kennedy Space Center Visitors Center...

euromanxdude

7th Sep 2006, 19:26

Thank goodness other crews are in the same boat!!!!
Past few weeks has been utter frustration at fraggle rock intl airport.
Few days after 10th aug myself and 3 other members of the crew went through the crew channel. My bag went through x-ray next to a similar crew bag. My collegue was pulled aside and was told her entire overnight kit to be confiscated - while my bag was given the ok - it still had the almost same amount of stuff in it, ie toothpaste, deodrant etc etc.
Next time i wasnt so lucky so was informed i could check my crew bag in which i did succesfully and retrieve it at the aircraft steps.
But, alas...the next day i was informed that crew were no longer informed they could do this...only way was to take overnight kit out.
For two weeks we managed having to give up our stuff...but unfortantly ...recently had to nightstop...didnt have any overnight kit resulting in a mad dash to boots in the airport.
Dont mean to sound like a moaner...fully understand that security are only doing their jobs...its just that rules seem to be changing day to day. Some staff will let you take your essential night kit trough...but the next day a collegue wont. It has led in a few delays....especially after heated debates between security and female cabin crew who refused to give up their prized pocessions of expensive make up - would never want to get on the wrong side of them - always the quiet ones you have to look out for.
But defo agree and so do many crews of many airlines ... at our airline all the essentials in our nightstop kit are classed as a must have as part of a duty.....after working 6/7 hours and on the last sector..pax are getting complimentary BO as well as drinks.:eek:

A2QFI

7th Sep 2006, 21:55

The link marked (here) kindly posted in #810 leads to an official BAA dictat on what is and is not permitted in the cabin. There is no mention, one way or the other of, cameras, CD Players, i pods, car keys with remote function or mobile phones. This is the offical line and I am still none the wiser! A much shorter version of the other vast link in that post is
http://tinyurl.com/jfkar

Llademos

8th Sep 2006, 08:28

On the 747 freighter we regularly carry several tons of flammable liquids and explosives. As many of these items are not allowed on passenger aircraft they are loaded on the main deck so that I have full access to them in flight. However, I'm not allowed access to my tube of toothpaste. :ugh:
Airclues

Not only that, CA, but you also have a choice of two axes to open the containers of flammable liquids plus the allowable box of matches (no lighters, though ... can't be seen to be sensible now) to ignite the spill.

Of course, that wouldn't happen, because you don't have your toothpaste ... can't meet the virgins in heaven with manky teeth. :rolleyes:

prim2

8th Sep 2006, 13:43

I hate being subjected to these security measures as much as anyone else, but can you honestly say that it is impossible that one pilot could be coerced into taking a package (containing a prohibited item) through security to simply be collected on the other side? I believe everyone (including police) have to be screened in order to preclude a breach.

SLF3

8th Sep 2006, 14:02

Since everything that goes into the airside airport shops is obviously rigourously screened, no risk of our suicidal SLF or flight crew picking up something dodgy there!

It is not the mindless stupidity of the 'rules' that really gets me: the utter stupidity of so many facets of life in modern Britain makes it unlikely that something as petty as stopping people taking lipstick on aeroplanes will lower my opinion of our institutions still further. The bit that really grates is having no choice but to suffer the inept performance of BAA on a regular basis, and having no choice in the matter. The security screening debacle is nothing more than you would expect from an organisation that is completely dysfunctional.

chrisbl

8th Sep 2006, 18:23

[Hmmm, let's see, how many ink cartridge's worth of liquid would I need to try & make something nasty?? Should I use red or blue ink?? Tell you what, better be on the cautious side, 500 x 2ml = one litre, so I'd better try & smuggle a few thousand on ...... get real, DfT!!! :hmm: ]
Ink Cartridge - about the size of a detonator - fits an ink pen nicely - idiot

derekl

8th Sep 2006, 18:43

So can I take my fountain pen (with a cartridge:eek:) of liquid :eek: :eek: ink in it?

Can I take my gel pen :eek: :eek: :eek: ?

When will the silliness stop?

carousel

8th Sep 2006, 19:56

Hmmm, last time I used one (military before anyone gets worried!), had electronics/explosive/wire or other "innards" detectable through screening - chemical/acid ones can't be plastic either...
Likewise, these normally have to be pre-loaded in a detonator with a small amount of primary explosive, such as TNT, hence tubing, wires, etc, also detectable on security screening.
Yes detectable but only if screened by a fully trained wide awake on the ball operator, and not hidden within an item with other electronic components(camera laptop mobile cd player or radio) And by the way the explosives look like fruit or drinks and an x-ray can't tell the difference between nitro and water, add the battery from your favourite electronic gizmo and remember suicide bombers don't need timer's!!

SmokeAndNoise

9th Sep 2006, 01:08

Today I was forced to check in my "ace-case" in LGW because it's about 1 cm too thick for the new measures. Great. Having already spent 50 min in the check-in queue I was just delighted to spend another 30 min in the "fast baggage check-in" queue. I was told it was for my own safety - which made me feel a lot better... :D ...Then some 20 minutes of queue to get through security with no shoes on my feet and a nice full body massage.
By the way, I've had the exact same case with me in and out of LHR, LTN, MXP, RMI and CPH after the terrorist scare with no problems what so ever..

I think you need to be of British origin to really understand what's going on in LGW.

For my part it makes me wonder what's to stop me from just stuffing a detonator and 300 grams of c4 up my "behind" and just walse through security with a (perhaps slightly painful looking) smile on my face??

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion about the "security" situation at the moment, but really: How are you going to stop someone who's willing to die for "the cause" in the long run?

Hobo

9th Sep 2006, 04:52

Here's a little gem I have cut and pasted for your laughter.............

Of course the said meals were then airside in the engineers's stomachs! Where they were just as a significant threat as had they been in the take away containers.

TDK mk2

10th Sep 2006, 15:23

The man you should address your correspondance to is:
David Sterland,
Head of Aviation Security Compliance,
Transport Security and Contigencies Directorate,
Department for(?!) Transport,
5th Floor Zone 13,
Southside,
105 Victoria Street,
London,
SW1E 6DT.
His email address MAY be: [email protected]
I'll let you know if I get a reply to that address...

I did get a reply from the gentleman above. He said:

"I appreciate the issues you raise and at this point can only really say that we are working hard here, along with representatives from industry and the TUs, to see how the measures can be changed in the light of operational experience and the prevailing threat.

I cannot say anything this morning that is going to give an immediate fix or, I'm afraid, give you the answer you are looking for as operational crew. But I can say that a lot of folk are working very hard here to resolve this situation.

Please do continue to give your specfic feedback on the operational impact to your company security people and / or BALPA with whom we are dealing. If they feel they are not in contact with us, then please ask them to email me directly.

Thanks again for making contact."

Can't say fairer than that really and respect to the gentleman for responding to my fairly strongly worded email...

Alycidon

10th Sep 2006, 19:46

Noble effort mate, but you've just been fobbed off in a Right Royal fashion.

On a more positive note, apparently the Inbound pax are selling handcream and other toiletries to the cabin crew at very reasonable prices.

One could possibly source some form of explosive this way as well, so that you could hide it in your shoes just to make sure the wreckage catches fire after you've crashed your aircraft into the public building of your choice.

Must go now, just checking my Sony Li Ion battery will ignite my laptop at the correct point of the flight!!

Toodle Pip

ChristiaanJ

10th Sep 2006, 20:53

Just before the scare, I bought a carry-on with a size to the old standadrs.
Who do I sue now?

Popster

10th Sep 2006, 22:14

Hmmm, maybe a change in the offing......??
Not before time. Today at BHD 3 Cabin crew arrived late at aircraft traumatised by the experience of passing through security. Handbags upended then swabbed for explosive traces, contents examined in minute detail with even a calculator dissembled to check for who knows what. Uniformed crew with valid ID's but not from BHD so having to go through central search in front of some of their passengers and treated as if they were a credible threat to operations.
Why do aircrew keep getting singled out for special attention, are they a real risk or the soft option for " random searches " ?

silverelise

11th Sep 2006, 12:03

Just before the scare, I bought a carry-on with a size to the old standadrs.
Who do I sue now?
:)
Something I lost in the melée regarding liquid explosives - why were the size requirements changed? Why is the smaller size of hand luggage safe but the larger one dangerous all of a sudden?

eidah

11th Sep 2006, 12:11

Out Of Trim

11th Sep 2006, 14:08

:)
Something I lost in the melée regarding liquid explosives - why were the size requirements changed? Why is the smaller size of hand luggage safe but the larger one dangerous all of a sudden?

I gather that the main reason for the size change, Is that the smaller the bag - Then less items will be carried in a less dense bag and make it easier for X-ray operators to spot anything that is forbidden without hand-searching so often. Hence speeding up the security queue.

ChristiaanJ

11th Sep 2006, 16:52

Smaller luggage......
The size difference is not really enough to make a significant difference in security.
But it certainly will make a nice difference in the balance sheets of the travel luggage people.
Curses, can't remember the names.... "Dollseye" or something? And "Marmite" comes to mind ... can't be right.... but I'm sure it ended on "...ite".
A bit of lobbying at the right time and "under the radar" can do wonders, no?
OK, I'll get my coat. I hope I'm still allowed to take that on board.

offa

11th Sep 2006, 17:14

I would assume that EVERYBODY is subjected to the same screening at all entry points (i.e. all customs, baggage handlers, drivers, mechanics, cleaners, etc.) ......... or is it only reserved for dodgy characters like aircrew???

Itswindyout

11th Sep 2006, 17:51

Or is this too simple...........

only a thought, sorry

Cru

I Just Drive

11th Sep 2006, 21:45

At STN some genious has made a list of acceptable foods to be taken through security. Apparently frozen meals (including curry) are a threat but a sandwich is ok. When is someone at the DfT and/or BAA going to take a step back and put some sense back into aviation security? Go and pick any one of the thousands of line pilots out there and in one go get the opinion of someone directly involved (and at risk) from security issues.

Roger Ring

11th Sep 2006, 23:03

A question to the Ryan Guys at STN - What is the crew food situation for you guys, now that DFT have stopped virtually all food and drink short of Sandwiches (with unlimited mayo!) ?

Funnel Cloud

12th Sep 2006, 13:11

A question to the Ryan Guys at STN - What is the crew food situation for you guys, now that DFT have stopped virtually all food and drink short of Sandwiches (with unlimited mayo!) ?
It's simple. 5 Days a week we can now only eat sandwiches with lots of mayo and we can bring crisps. All the nice lovely dinners, curries etc that we always used to eat (incl home cooked meals) are now confiscated at BAA security.
So at the end of the week we've gained a few pounds and our cholesterol levels gone mad. Why can't airline crew just eat what they want? It's easy for the Stansted BAA staff who can go for lunch and dinner during their breaks...
Today a big tent has been placed AIRSIDE at Stansted airport with a few barbeques where they cook hamburgers for BAA Security staff ONLY and us airline crew have all our food taking away by the same people!
:ugh: :ugh:

wiggy

12th Sep 2006, 13:26

Today a big tent has been placed AIRSIDE at Stansted airport with a few barbeques where they cook hamburgers for BAA Security staff ONLY and us airline crew have all our food taking away by the same people!
:ugh: :ugh:
Jeez, if that's true they really are taking the proverbial...Never mind, the musical lovies are kicking off about not being able to carry on their instruments:mad:, whats the betting they get their cellos's etc approved for carry on before you get your food supplies back to normal.

Isn't it great that BALPA are really keeping the pressure up on this issue with all their press releases:ugh:

Rwy in Sight

12th Sep 2006, 13:48

Maybe BAA front line staff needs the home cooked meal more than aircrew needs them.

How about if aircrew shares the meal with grounds staff.

Rwy in Sight

the dean

12th Sep 2006, 15:03

all very interesting to see the lengths to which these guys are putting pilots through...and passangers.

some of these people should be making science fiction movies....!!....come to think of it maybe they are..!!

but i have to wonder are the people who are intruducing such ridiculous measures reading these lines or are we talking to each other..!!!

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Gnirren

12th Sep 2006, 15:13

Sandwitches only at stn?? What retarded muppet decided that sandwitches do not pose a threat whereas my tuna salad does? This is unreal people, UNREAL. I mean it's gone from darkly humourus do outright neanderthal. Is it illegal to tell a security guard to go f*ck himself in the UK? Because I seriously think I'll have difficulty restraining myself if they steal my food. STEAL my food , because that's exactly what it is. Theft.

Funnel Cloud

12th Sep 2006, 15:53

Since September 8th the following food can be taken airside by Airline Staff:

Sandwiches (incl with mayonnaise or sauce's)
Packet Snacks (Crisps etc)
Fresh or dried fruit
Vegetables
Only solid foods

Prohibited are:
Any liquid-based food
Frozen Meals
Pastas and food with gravy, sauces etc...
Jams / Syrups
Sauces
Pastes
Yoghurts
Rice Pudding
Ice / Ice cream
Soups (even in cartons)
Stews
Curry
Gravy
Butter / Margerine

Working for an airline where you bring your own food for the day, this basically means that you will have a very boring and unhealthy diet and live on sandwiches for the whole week....

Can anyone confirm that this policy is not applied in other BAA Airports, like Heathrow or Gatwick? Why would there be a difference here?

ChristiaanJ

12th Sep 2006, 16:39

Approved:
Sandwiches (incl with mayonnaise or sauces)...
Vegetables
OK guys, this is a no-brainer.
One sandwich, with sheet explosive (the stuff you put in your shoes, remember?). Looks like cheese anyway, probably smells like it.
Add enough explosive paste (what, you don't watch Brainiac? Any self-respecting terrorist should).
Mask with a dab of mayo or chutney.
At the appropriate moment, peel off the top layer of soggy bread, deal the rest a smart smack with a celery stick (approved vegetable).
And Boom-Boom is your uncle.

Musket90

12th Sep 2006, 16:51

The big airside tent at STN is something to do with a ramp safety campaign, food is available to all visitors.

ambidextrous

12th Sep 2006, 16:55

It isn't the absurd dietary restrictions that concern me nor the lack of understanding of a modern airline pilot's lifestyle. What does concern me is the sight of heavily armed, flakjacketed policemen prowling the terminals of the London triangle of airports.
Are current aircrew not bothered by the daily sight of the Met.Police preparing for what seems to be "Apocalypse Now"? Has anybody asked what their 'rules of engagement' are? The Heckler & Koch is a machine-gun, this is an area suppression weapon, are the police seriously thinking of opening fire over the heads of passengers in a crowded airport terminal? Who are the potential enemy?, are the authorities seriously implying that they expect Al-Queda to storm the check-in counters?
If they don't,then daily we are witnessing intimidatory posturing on the part of the Met.Police & it should be stopped forthwith. The sight of armed police with their fingers hovering over triggers in the corridors of Heathrow frightens me more than the thought of Al-Queda does!
I have just returned from over two weeks flying around Europe & I haven't seen one flakjacketed/machine gun armed policeman. If the Continentals are happy with no flakjackets and a holstered pistol, why aren't the Met.Police?
Let's get back to normality, and normality is NO flakjacketed, machine-gun toting policemen in UK's major airports please.:ugh:

Funnel Cloud

12th Sep 2006, 17:04

The big airside tent at STN is something to do with a ramp safety campaign, food is available to all visitors.

Not true... Some Ryanair Pilots were told they were not welcome there and had to leave!

ChristiaanJ

12th Sep 2006, 17:32

This is of course the new Al Quaeda policy.
Foster a few plots, recruit a few misguided disgruntled fools.
Even if the actual plots don't come off, they still can sit back and watch the system tearing itself apart.
Curries, indeed......
Didin't BA say they already lost £40M in the process?
Maybe we should start looking inside the so-called "security services" for the real accomplices to the terrorists? They're doing a splendid job, so far!

lexxity

12th Sep 2006, 17:48

Funnel Cloud that's the same list as at MAN. Madness.

There are also police pottering round with their machine guns at MAN, always have been as far as I remember. They don't frighten me, I find their prescence reassuring.

cabingal

12th Sep 2006, 17:59

Crew food is the most dangerous of them all

blue up

12th Sep 2006, 18:03

At EG**, a well known centre for comedic security (See Balpa "LOG" magazine) I happened to find a 2.5 gallon tin marked "HIGHLY FLAMMABLE" at the bottom of the steps to Stand 10. Paint? M.E.K.? Dunno. 3 other tins and a very sharp builders' 12-inch trowel within 5 feet of the steps.

Security were kind enough to x-ray my shoelaces but unable to find the 500cc bottle of Dettox disinfectant spray in my small crew bag.

From my time as an instructor in this sort of stuff, the core idea of security is to make it obvious that "your" security is so robust that Mr Bad-guy will target someone else who is a softer touch. One of the reasons that I like to see heavily equipped Police standing in the airbride during boarding. Has a remarkable effect on pax!!!!! Very quiet.:E

exloadie

12th Sep 2006, 18:20

same over the top security at LPL.a airside worker even had to open his can of fruit and drink the juice before they would let him through.:mad: :ugh: :mad: :* :* :*

ATCO1987

12th Sep 2006, 19:14

Ok heres my 2p's worth (as airport security at a certain regional airport)...

Dont argue with or blame the security staff, we don't make the rules; DfT do and we comply with them. We cannot change/override them. Just stop packing the banned items (e.g. liquids, that includes lip glosses ladies!) it saves fussing.

Crew/Staff are NOT exempt, and if you start getting arrogant with us then you'll find yourself being clamped-down upon even more! We try to make things as quick and smooth as we can, whilst complying with the rules set for us. Please respect the fact we have a job to do, help us to help you! (The "but we were allowed to bring it through yesterday" routine doesnt work either, because the response will be along the lines of "well im on duty now and you aint taking it!")

As for identifying liquids, it is difficult as liquids are organic and are very often in plastic bottles which are also organic, thus show up the same colour as the bag itself, and any other organic content such as food, books etc. But it is manageable and theres no excuse if any security staff do not identify a liquid, no matter how small.

Nearly done..... we should all be singing from the same hymn sheet; into the RZ you can take SOLID food only. No liquids in ANY form (toothpaste, lighters, deodorant, gels, creams etc), unless prescribed medicine. Rules on sharp objects are the same as they were before. If you are based at an airport with a dedicated crew access point (like at the airport where I work) then if you happen to forget a liquid in your bag and you speak to the security staff nicely then they might let you pick it up when you return! We do... (I dont work for BAA though, maybe they arent as nice I dont know...)

Now, for passengers out there. DONT argue with us either because you'll get nowhere, only offloaded if you dont chill out. The rules are there to be adhered to, as I said; security staff cannot bend the rules. If you want to get tetchy with someone then contact the DfT!

FINALLY... Someone commented that they hope all airport staff are searched the same as passengers. Yes, anyone accessing the RZ (bar police officers, who have a warrant) are subject to search (even security staff).

Maybe Ive opened a can of worms, but I dont care :).

MaxReheat

12th Sep 2006, 19:29

'we don't make the rules; DfT do and we comply with them' - then if you've got more than 2 brain cells to rub together, why aren't YOU questionning these ridiculous rules and ACTIVELY reporting up the chain. If you are unable to see the futility of what you subject all flight, cabin and engineering staff to daily then you and those who think like you are part of the problem.:ugh:

Fool's Hole

12th Sep 2006, 19:31

ATCO1987

Fair enough, BUT I have an airside pass!
I have been cleared to access my rightful place of employment airside, unlatch a 50 ton "missile" and fly it through the ........ air! Full of fuel and pax.
However I try to understand this idiocy which I have to go through every day, I can't.
I should be allowed to take whatever with me to airside, as my pass allows me to.
I have written to the idiots at dft, so far naff all reply!
I am a captain of an aircraft. Not a bloody terrorist. If I was one, I would have done my gruesome deed a while ago, so I don't have to go through this sh*t at the security every day!
Get this - a terrorist would have had enough by now and done the exploding curry/mayonnaise stuff. It's only innocents that get harrassed by security, it's easy pickings and not really security at all.
How many terrorists have you found in your career? None? Then what is it actually you're doing for a living?
It's just a stupid mess and people like yourself should stand up against it and refuse to carry on doing this!
Let us go to work peacefully, or please resign! :D

ATCO1987

12th Sep 2006, 19:38

'we don't make the rules; DfT do and we comply with them' - then if you've got more than 2 brain cells to rub together, why aren't YOU questionning these ridiculous rules and ACTIVELY reporting up the chain.

DfT wont take any more notice of us than they will of any of you, believe you me. Theres many things we'd like to approach the DfT and say "What a load of total bol*o*ks" but we won't get anywhere. I know its frustrating for some of you but its their regulations, the point of my thread is basically dont take it out on the security staff because its not our fault.

Fair enough, BUT I have an airside pass!
I have been cleared to access my rightful place of employment airside, unlatch a 50 ton "missile" and fly it through the ........ air! Full of fuel and pax.
However I try to understand this idiocy which I have to go through every day, I can't.
I should be allowed to take whatever with me to airside, as my pass allows me to.

NO, your pass does NOT allow you to take whatever you want. I suggest you read the pass holder conditions. You are just another person entering the RZ; the difference is you have an RZ pass instead of a boarding pass because you require regular RZ access. I agree, you do have control over the whole aircraft and effectively it is a missle, but you are wrong in what you say regarding being able to take whatever you want.

Fool's Hole

12th Sep 2006, 19:46

I agree, you do have control over the whole aircraft and effectively it is a missle, but you are wrong in what you say regarding being able to take whatever you want.

I don't mean bombs or bomb making gear, semtex or machine guns, but my pass doesn't prohibit me from taking curry or an effin lipstick!
So, I am a trusted member of an airport, but not quite???.
Where does my pass say that then? Partially trusted access only????
I should be able to take food because of that. Lipstick because of that, as I blatantly don't intend to kill any of my passengers that way!!!
THINK THINK THINK.

ATCO1987

12th Sep 2006, 19:53

winkle

12th Sep 2006, 19:58

you sound like one of the brainless ones, the quote "of well it was ok yesterday" was because your collegue decided to take an ACTIVE part in these measures and stop wasting his time on known aircrew. i must say i loved the bit about being prevented from retrieving your own bag from the hold of the aircraft you have just legally signed for as being one of the most absurd. you will be reported- to whom - the aircraft captain! the head of the airport gestapo? or threats of your own management. get real people in the security world and start using the brains you were given stop humiliating the aircrew and take an active part, you are not slaves and as far i was aware we do not live in a dictatorship. we are all in this together so start helping the crews as we are the ones who need you on our side probably most of all. so next time you, your wife kids mum dad etc get on board you want to make sure that the crew are top of their game not seething with rage because of some bloodyminded jobsworth in security decides to HAVE a go at one of the crew. it could be your family or mine. get it sorted people the joke is over.:ugh:

ATCO1987

12th Sep 2006, 20:06

Ok not brainless thanks. No, colleagues have not been doing that. We know our place and our job. There ARE certain members of staff that will bend the rules but they are the ones that tend to just let every prohibited item go unless its a firearm or explosive. Thats their problem and they are failing to do their job.

Its not about being a jobsworth, its about following the rules set for us. You as pilots should know all about rules. Seeking permission to enter controlled airspace doesnt make you a jobsworth does it? No, because that is a regulation, just like whats set for us. (No im not comparing security to that Im using it as an example).

So, why are you still slagging us off? How many more times, NOT OUR RULES. Yes some are petty but thats life. Argue with the DfT.

sat1

12th Sep 2006, 20:08

I did get a reply from the gentleman above. He said:

"I appreciate the issues you raise and at this point can only really say that we are working hard here, along with representatives from industry and the TUs, to see how the measures can be changed in the light of operational experience and the prevailing threat.

I cannot say anything this morning that is going to give an immediate fix or, I'm afraid, give you the answer you are looking for as operational crew. But I can say that a lot of folk are working very hard here to resolve this situation.

Please do continue to give your specfic feedback on the operational impact to your company security people and / or BALPA with whom we are dealing. If they feel they are not in contact with us, then please ask them to email me directly.

Thanks again for making contact."

Can't say fairer than that really and respect to the gentleman for responding to my fairly strongly worded email...
All he is saying-politely-is...I hear what your saying but please go away 'cos I dont care 'cos I have no answers that you want to hear.

freightdoggy dog

12th Sep 2006, 20:08

Ambi, these MGs are not standard Hecks that the Met are tooled up with !!

Lord Lucan

12th Sep 2006, 20:14

Tell me ATCO1987, hae you ever told DfT that there regulations are totally stupid, and have been ignored, or were you making that up?

Anyone who has access to Airside knows that the security procedures are a total *Let's pretend we are doing something* sham.

<POLITICAL RANT ON>
In my opinion they have much more to do with protecting politicians arses than anything connected to the real world. You are more likely to be killed by lightning than to be killed by a terrorist, ...and no, it is not all due to the effectiveness of *security*
<POLITICAL RANT OFF>

I agree with Max Reheat
with this attitude you are part of the problem.

I thoroughly object to turning our airports (and with it our freedom to travel) into mini police states, where you are locked up for arguing with the (private, semi trained) cops.

And the *I was only following orders* defence was blown some time ago.

ATCO1987

12th Sep 2006, 20:19

No I haven't said anything to the DfT but its quite obvious that they wont take any notice! At least it wont change anything.

Airport security wont go away. You can whinge as much as you want, but I wouldnt suggest whinging at us.

Lord Lucan

12th Sep 2006, 20:38

Then I would suggest ATCO1987, that it is part of YOUR responsibiliy to contact them them right away and tell them their rules are stupid and counterproductive. YOU are the responsible person at the operational end of your part of the business. If the rule makrs will not listen to you, there is something seriously wrong, don't you think

That is how things are supposed to work in the aviation business. If we see stupid procedures we report them and make every attempt to correct them. That is why te aviation business is so safe, despite the inherently dangerous nature of our business. We did not get to this position by blindly and unquestioningly following dumb, counterproductive procedures.

Fool's Hole

12th Sep 2006, 20:55

The few security guards that do have a brain, are the ones that turn a blind eye to the "bending" of the RULES.
They are the ones that will grow old gracefully and tell their grand children, "well yes I may have had a useless job at airport security, but we didn't half help those hard done by crews from time to time and made sure they would have a good start to their day, by ignoring the idiots at the dft. Indeed, we took pride in that!"

That's the spirit.

bbrown1664

12th Sep 2006, 20:59

OK, I have read enough of this rubbish now and feel I have to comment.:ugh: FWIW I am not aircrew but used to be an Aircraft Engineer at one of the London airports. I also know many BAA Security staff and know the crap that they, like ATCO1987, are being put through.

It is bad enough that the passengers, the people who pay your wages, have so much crap to wade through to board an aircraft without having some jumped up, hollier than thow muppet at the pointy end who thinks that because he is allowed up the front he is a god. At the end of the day, you are just the driver of the airbourne bus. Put up and shut up or shift out. The choice is yours.

As for your credentials proving you are above the rest, how many of you remember the guy that was convicted in the USA recently for his part in the 9/11 attacks. He was a qualified pilot and could easily have been sitting amongst you on the flight deck for many months before his designated date.

Yes, you are in control of an explosive filled rocket that you could, if you were mad enough, use in the same way as the 9/11 attackers did without the need to break into the flightdeck. On the otherhand, your fellow crew member may not be as mad as you and you might have to render him out of the equation with some noxious liquid before he would allow you to point the aircraft down. I would imagine he/she would protest if you didn't!

So, just like the rest of the people who pay your wages, the people who sell you your newspaper, the security staff who do the checking, you will be restricted to the same criteria for searches and restrictions. This will not be "just for a little while", you will be subject to them for all time. Just because they are tighter now than they were when you started flying with Mr Wright, get used to it. Stop complaining and act like a profesional rather than the (sorry in advance for those that are not) overpaid, over ego'ed people that you are.

Times change, the job changes, the requirement and processes change. Not all for the better but you have to make the choice. Live with it or find another job. The choice is yours.

Popster

12th Sep 2006, 21:04

Does anyone know of, or have a copy to post of what exactly is the DfT guidance to airports? . It seems that there is wide variances between UK airports as to what may be acceptable past security, for instance at Heathrow nightstop bags with liquids are allowed airside provided they are placed in the hold but not at BHD. Matches are removed at EDI but permissible at LGW along with pills ( Anadin, Ibuprofen etc ) which will be removed at EDI.

If there was some sort of definitive level playing field then things would be easier to cope with however the various airport security managers appear to have their own interpretation of the rules which are duly passed on to the frontline staff.

I'm used to rules, my working life is governed by them but I need to know what they are and that they will be applied consistently.

GRRRRRRR !

Lord Lucan

12th Sep 2006, 21:13

bbrown1664 - Firstly, the alleged hijackers were NOT qualified pilots. At best, they had a private pilots licence, and there was no way in hell they could ever have bluffed their way into getting an airliner off the ground.

And if the security staff are getting crap, it is because they are enforcing crap rules.

And quite honestly this is not just about those gods amongst men, the pilots, but about the whole frigging lot of us. Crew, handling, pax, fuelers and the engineers. We are ALL putting up with this ill considerd nonsense

ATCO1987

12th Sep 2006, 21:19

Thank you bbrown1664, agree with you totally! I was trying to remain clear of the get your head out of your backside related comment as I was trying to keep it pleasant, so thanks again for saying it for me :-).

Popster; safety matches should be allowed in all airports, no lighters. Any good airport should have a list of what is and is not allowed through the search comb. Heres my list of what cant go:
Drinks in any containers.
Soups
Syrups
Sauces
Pastes
Yoghurts
Toothpaste
Aerosols
(deodorant, shaving foam)
Hair gel
Perfume
Liquid make up
(mascara, foundation, lip gloss)
Cigarette lighters
(Do not pack cigarette lighters into checked in/hold baggage)
Non safety matches

Sunfish

12th Sep 2006, 21:25

It has been suggested that there has been a huge increase in the fractional jet ownership market in part as a result of security hassles and associated congestions etc. since 911.

The largest of them NetJet, has 600+ aircraft.

bbrown1664

12th Sep 2006, 21:26

Lord Lucan - OK, I may have got that slightly wrong, but who is to say that there is not a pilot or three out there who sympathises with the terrorists? It is not unknown and, incase you have all forgotten, at least one of the people arrested immediately prior to the August issue was an airside pass holder. So now tell me why you should be exempt as a passholder from the full security that the wage payers have to go through?

The regulations are there, they may be OTT, but they are there and you have to live with them.

toppledgyro

12th Sep 2006, 21:28

ATCO1987, bbrown1664, on my flight deck we carry a very big, sharp axe - therefore, why on earth would I bother to incapacitate my fellow pilot with a tub of yoghurt??? :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

ChristiaanJ

12th Sep 2006, 21:30

The fact that they can't even spell "sterilised" should tell you a lot about their level of intelligence and mental state.....

Lord Lucan

12th Sep 2006, 21:34

bbrown1664.

The truth of the matter is, that the only pilot who would stand much chance of getting an airliner off the ground from a European airport would be an employee of the company which operates the aircraft. This stuff cannot be bluffed to all the people who would have to be fooled. The only way you can learn company SOP's is to have been through the company line training.

Popster

12th Sep 2006, 21:44

Popster; safety matches should be allowed in all airports, no lighters. Any good airport should have a list of what is and is not allowed through the search comb. Bristol, where I work (maybe I shouldnt have said that...) has a list on their site so refer to that if you wish; should be pretty universal: www.bristolairport.com.[

But clearly there are variable standards all over the country. This makes our lives harder so surely there should be the same restrictions wherever we operate.

Mentaleena

12th Sep 2006, 21:49

Stop complaining and act like a profesional rather than the (sorry in advance for those that are not) overpaid, over ego'ed people that you are.

bbrown1664

You and your atco mate are entitled to your opinions.

I agree with ALL the pilots' comments above.

So now what?

BusyB

12th Sep 2006, 21:49

bbrown1664,

Your ranting only goes to show your ignorance.

Pilots are required to have more than 1pr of glasses with them by law. If you spent up to 18hrs a duty in a dessicated atmosphere you too would eventually need eyedrops and a moisturising cream. If you rest in a bunk you need a change of clothes and a washbag plus contents to make yourself respectable (it can easily be 20 hrs from leaving home/hotel to reaching home/hotel).

Now tell me how many other staff actually have their job actually made so uncomfortable it could be torture.

The truth is there needs to be a day of action (inaction)by all pilots operating in/into/out of the UK to finally have some sense put into these restrictions.:ugh:

ChicoChico

12th Sep 2006, 22:00

bbrown1664,
clearly you are a jealous wannabe and your position seems to be that us glorified busdrivers should suck it up and endure what we KNOW to be ridiculous rules that are largely there for the eye-candy of the masses.. Well guess what we see the bs on a daily basis and seeing the stupidity over and over doesn't make it right or safe.
When I travel as a passenger then I will be a quiet little sheep and line up for the treatement like everyone else.
Chico

Sir Thomas

12th Sep 2006, 22:27

Hmm,
I just spent 40 minutes trying to ( legally ) get rid of my overnight bag , only to have access to it airside throughout my very long day. Of course at the end of this day I had to get my bag out the hold myself and wheel it back landside.
Not saying all this is dangerous though, I wouldnt have been able to find this bag should I have needed it in anger anyway, as the DfT makes damn sure my killer contact lenses turn into cardboard after an hour on a flightdeck...
I don't know much, but if the idiots at the DfT really believe all their games improve security one bit, they're even dumber than me. The only effect I see this having is some stressed out crew performing an oopsie somewhere and bending a bird. Maybe then people will start thinking.

dash6

12th Sep 2006, 23:00

Out Of Trim

13th Sep 2006, 00:51

After reading the comments from ATCO1987 etc. It would appear that the constant flak from staff and passengers about the stupid rules on food etc is getting to them. Good! About time.

So, I think perhaps we should change are passive stance and all have a go at them.. Challenge everything that appears stupid and give them all a hard time.

Just perhaps,they will then forward are views to their management and get DfT to see sense.

And If you try getting heavy with us; just consider that many of us are ex military and could take most of you lard arses down anytime! :)

feckwits.

ATCO1987

13th Sep 2006, 07:57

Popster, couldnt agree with you more. We should all be following the same rules. Cant say more than that Im afraid.

After reading the comments from ATCO1987 etc. It would appear that the constant flak from staff and passengers about the stupid rules on food etc is getting to them. Good! About time.

So, I think perhaps we should change are passive stance and all have a go at them.. Challenge everything that appears stupid and give them all a hard time.

Just perhaps,they will then forward are views to their management and get DfT to see sense.

And If you try getting heavy with us; just consider that many of us are ex military and could take most of you lard arses down anytime!

feckwits.

What planet are you on? How far do you think you'll get by having a go at security? Ive stressed this many times, its NOT our doing! We just follow the rules set for us, gang up on the DfT not us. If you were to "gang up" and have a go at us, chances are that we'd get bored of you and we'd let you continue your rant to a police officer, much easier. Is it in a pilots job description that arrogance is a must? Sorry to generalise, I know there are some human pilots out there. But many arrogant ones too.

I-FORD

13th Sep 2006, 08:34

I wonder why the British aviation community, that I always respected as world leader in commercial aviation, and the British people (at least the travelling part of it) that always fought for freedom and civil rights, keep enduring this crap they are subject to when entering an airport.
A general boycott of those silly rules is long overdue.
Stop submitting to the useless toothpaste rule in large numbers, go back home when not allowed to take your meal with you in RZ and call in sick, use your car or a train, cancel yor trips or fly from Ireland or France if possible.
Grind the whole aviation industry to a stop, for at least a week, I'm sure in that case your illuminated leaders will take notice and do something about it.
Don't blame the innocent security staff, I never argue with a guard dog, I argue with the owner if a Dobermann attacks me.

Seloco

13th Sep 2006, 08:57

I earlier tried posting a positive experience here for a change but it seemed to vanish seconds after I posted so I'll try again.

Last Monday (11/9) was the first time I have flown (as pax) out of UK since the advent of the new security measures. I was travelling LHR-PRG and, in view of date, the evening rush-hour and terminal (T2) I decided to allocate more time than usual for the exercise, and also to time the process to see just how bad things are.

I started my stopwatch as I paid off the taxi outside the terminal, kept it going through the check-in (not pre-checked, and with baggage for the hold) and security processes, and finally stopped it once I had retrieved my bag, laptop and shoes at the end.

Total time: 7 minutes and 30 seconds from start to finish. I have never gone through T2 that fast before.

Oh, and the security staff with whom I had contact were uniformally pleasant, efficient and tolerant (anyone know how to say "only one bag" in Japanese?) even after what must have been a long day.

It's good to be able to post something positive for a change in the midst of what must still be huge frustrations for flight crew. It certainly helps my decision-making process when confronted by major company pressure to replace business travel with video-conferencing technology.

RevMan2

13th Sep 2006, 09:05

How many of you(us) would show flexibility when it comes to Dangerous Goods?

The same principle applies: in the case of DGR, there's a regulatory handbook that defines what's acceptable (or not) and if it says in the book that maximum 1 litre of acetic acid solution is acceptable for passenger aircraft, then that's it. Anything more is not acceptable.

In the case of hand luggage, if the book says no liquids, then that's it. No liquids.

In a previous life, it was my job to check DGR goods and documents and give approval for their transportation. I was qualified to do this (pass mark was 80% and I was in the 98%-100% bracket) and it wasn't my job to interpret the regulations ("Well, it says here that the limit for passenger aircraft is 1 litre, but it's just over, so I'll let it go...") It was my job to apply them.

And sure, I got some abusive verbals from customers (and some not-so-veiled threats from our sales people), but it's not a popularity contest.
And sure some of the people I worked with would let stuff slip through - either through slackness or to brown-nose management and customers.

So let's apply the same principle to security (although they don't necessarily have the advantage of working with regulations that make absolute sense.)

They're in the same position as the DGR checker - if they're not applying the regulations, they're not doing their job. So what's the point of giving them a hard time? If they get flexible to let you get around the rules, it's their neck on the line, not yours.

Let's by all means lobby for a re-introduction of common sense into the arena, but trickle up is rarely effective.

Do you really believe that the DGR Manual was written in stone and hasn't changed since its introduction? Of course it's been updated to reflect newly identified risks and it's also been liberalised to reflect risks that are lower than initially perceived.

Build up a case that's based on objectivity, get some domain experts to provide a risk assessment and get BALPA, BARUK and other the stakeholders to present it to DfT.

Nothing else is going to work.

ATCO1987

13th Sep 2006, 09:11

Ok some of us would like to show some flexibility, but why should we risk our job just to keep a minority of snotty people happy?

Revman, spot on. Thanks for your reply. Outlined perfectly!

Don't blame the innocent security staff, I never argue with a guard dog, I argue with the owner if a Dobermann attacks me.

Quite right, go and whinge at DfT or our managers :-) our managers cant change anything either really, but whinge at them anyway, its what they are there for <G>. Apart from having meetings and drinking tea and coffee all day of course...

Hirsutesme

13th Sep 2006, 11:05

Yep, keep grumbling and whinging here on Prune, that'll change things.
Or maybe demand BALPA do something radical. Like call for a one day united day of action.
Or maybe just take unilateral action and refuse to fly while stressed and fatigued by the idiot rules you are being subjected too.
And maybe I wont hold my breath

Danny

13th Sep 2006, 11:08

The hot heads on here need to chill out a bit more. Whilst I agree that the interpretation and application of the current security mania/farce would be comical if it weren't so pathetic, I believe that you need to approach the matter calmly, politely and with complete logic.

As we have already seen from an earlier post, the only response you will get from the mandarins that make up these rules and policies is one of obfurscation and avoidance of substance. In other words, the only reason you would be told any reasons would be if you needed to know and in this case you don't need to know.

Last week as I was passing through crew security control, I dutifully put my laptop sized flight case through the scanner and proceeded through the induction loop. I was told to turn around and go back and put my shoes through the scanner. I politely asked why I had to do that and was told that I may have a bomb in them. I retorted, "why would I need a bomb when I could still cause a lot of problems even if I was stark naked" (not a pretty sight). The response was that they don't make the rules, only follow them.

So, I then told them that I understood that they were just following orders and that my frustration wasn't with them but why didn't they question this with their managers. They told me that their managers wouldn't dare questioning the DfT. Point taken and feeling even more frustrated at the futility of trying to deal with what is in effect a de-facto police state where you cannot question the idiocy of some rules because you are then considered a security risk and will be treated as such. Catch-22.

Only satisfaction was knowing that they hadn't spotted the half filled tube of toothpaste I had in my flight bag, never mind the fact that, after passing airside I could have taken my suitcase with me to the flight deck had I so been inclined. Whilst they may believe there is a remote chance that someone may try to get a combination of liquids aboard and may be able to somehow set up their laboratory to mix them in the right quantities, sequence at the right temperatures and get them to crystalise into the exact way that will make them into an explosive, they have singularly managed to make themselves and their minions, the security staff, appear to the rest of as though they are the proverbial Brownshirts just following orders without real rhyme or reason when the real threat is the person, not the contents of their flight bags or frozen meals.

All the fantasy about a 'sleeper' pilot going to try and incapacitate the other pilot in order to commit an attrocity with an aircraft by smuggling some noxious substance just goes to show what fairyland some of those that protest at our protestatations live in. Again, as pointed out, nothing is needed to be smuggled past the security scanners to achieve that objective.

You are more likely to be hit by a bus when crossing a street than you are to be caught up in a terrorist plot. No one has banned crossing streets. We manage the risk of crossing the street and so we should manage the risk of someone trying to cause acts of terrorism on aircraft. Blanket screening and banning of everyday essentials is only some mandarins knee jerk response and reflects the idiocy and insular thinking that goes on at the highest levels where these edicts trickle down from.

Until profiling is introduced we are going to have to put up with this futile security. Profiling is designed to weed out the person with the intent to cause a problem. Screening is just a political fudge-up designed to make a cosmetic show of something being done for the masses who have very little idea of what really goes on behind the scenes. A person with no intention of causing any trouble who somehow, accidentally, manages to take a knife or anything for that matter that could be construed as a weapon or part of a bomb, is not a problem. The only time there is a problem is when someone with the intention of causing trouble is allowed through because they don't have anything that is on the list of prohibited items. Never mind the fact that they can obtain just about anything that can be used as a weapon in one way or another after they have gone airside, whether that be a flammable liquid, a glass bottle or any number of items which when combined can be a danger if they know where to look.

Of course, the items to make explosives could just as easily been smuggled airside as part of bulk deliveries that we all know could never be screened properly. Those that would willingly be involved in that activity only need to pass a CRB check and as we have seen they are about as useful as a poke in the arm with a sharp stick. A profiler would be able to use their skills to spot the people that need to be prevented from access airside but it will never happen because it would mean that a Mandarin somewhere got it all wrong in the first place and they can't be seen to lose face.

The only way to highlight the problems would be to have organised protests with pre-notified media in attendance. The odd person making a protest will not make a difference and will only serve to get themsleves into trouble as we have seen on here by the threats from a 'security person' because they have been given the rights to do so. The real kind of protest needs a lot of organising with a skilled PR front. I don't have the time or the necessary skills to organise one so unless our representatives are prepared to assist, we will just have to carry on accepting the farce with the satisfaction of knowing that we have managed to give them the slip from time to time by getting our toothpaste through.

Monarch Man

13th Sep 2006, 11:32

Danny........

My leatherman/multi-tool, and liquid nosespray have travelled through security with me since day one:ok: (not prescription..or considered essential)
Just goes to show how effective the system is...:hmm:

fireflybob

13th Sep 2006, 11:52

As I have said before any other union (eg the RMT) would have called their members out on strike weeks ago! The mandarins at the top are not having to endure the stress of all this "security" screening - the only thing which will force them to take not is organised action.

Surely food and water are basic human rights? If flight deck are not being permitted to furnish theselves with adequate supplies this must go against something in EU legislation?

bananas_oz

13th Sep 2006, 13:02

daz211

13th Sep 2006, 13:58

India Air flight diverted to military air base in Dubai

13 September 2006

DUBAI -- Authorities at the Dubai International Airport (DIA) were forced to divert an incoming Indian Airlines aircraft to a military base in Dubai on Tuesday evening after the air traffic control received information from the Indian civil aviation authorities that a bomb was inside the plane.
A source at the Dubai General Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA) confirmed, however, that the distress call was a hoax.
'Airport authorities received the call from the Indian civil aviation authorities at 9:45 pm of Tuesday (September 12). The plane was not allowed to land at the DIA tarmac because in security cases like this, we have to follow certain procedures,' said the source who spoke to Khaleej Times on condition of anonymity.
The source explained that at 10pm, the Indian Airlines aircraft was diverted to Manhad, a military base in Dubai, where proper inspection were conducted by both the Dubai Police and Army.
'The aircraft was thoroughly searched, including the luggages. Members of the crew, as well as the passengers, were also checked as part of standard security procedures but no bomb was found on board,' the source added.
Following the thorough inspection, the GCAA source said that the plane was declared safe and was allowed to carry on with its regular flight procedures.

Globaliser

13th Sep 2006, 14:23

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/qantas-pilots-refuse-shoe-security-check/2006/09/13/1157827007542.html
A Qantas Airways flight was delayed for more than one hour in Manila after its pilots refused to remove their shoes during security check, an airport official said today.

Seems like this could be the start of something. Eventually they did have to comply.Time for this SLF to stick his head up above the parapet: If I, the paying customer, had been delayed for an hour because the pilots of my flight thought that they should not have to take their shoes off at the security checkpoint, when that was clearly a requirement, I would be furious with the pilots.

The requirements may be senseless and they may achieve nothing. They may need changing, and quickly. But taking out your frustrations on your passengers by delaying their flight is just childish when it's over an act as trivial as removing your shoes and putting them back on again. None of us passengers wish any idiocy to be visited on our crew, but we all have reasons why we are travelling and needless delay isn't part of the game plan.

cjhants

13th Sep 2006, 14:36

danny, well put, as usual. (crawling):) but the thing that concerns me is that the managers are afraid to question the DfT. these people are civil servants. their salaries and pensions funded by the likes of you and me. if BAA management are not able to raise sensible concerns, perhaps they are no the right people to be running our major airports.

ATCO1987

13th Sep 2006, 14:40

Cjhants, not civil servants as far as I know... I for one work for a security company; a general one, my division within that is obviously aviation security. Airport security staff don't work for the government or whatever (like customs do). They do in most other countries but unfortunately they dont here. Maybe thats the problem. Maybe we should work for DfT...oops, can open, worms everywhere...

(If you were referring to DfT being civil servants then I stand corrected of course)

cjhants

13th Sep 2006, 14:46

atco, sorry about confusion, yes Dft CC, BAA private

ATCO1987

13th Sep 2006, 14:53

Ok no problems. In which case Id agree, however, the managers probably dont really get the brunt of it, so for the managers to whinge at DfT theyd have to get a load of their security staff whinging at them... We will get fed up soon enough and start whinging no doubt, so maybe something will then be done :-). Maybe I'll raise the issue at work and see what sort of response I get. Probably shrugged shoulders but thats nothing new.

flyingbug

13th Sep 2006, 15:09

OK, I have read enough of this rubbish now and feel I have to comment.:ugh: FWIW I am not aircrew but used to be an Aircraft Engineer at one of the London airports. I also know many BAA Security staff and know the crap that they, like ATCO1987, are being put through.

It is bad enough that the passengers, the people who pay your wages, have so much crap to wade through to board an aircraft without having some jumped up, hollier than thow muppet at the pointy end who thinks that because he is allowed up the front he is a god. At the end of the day, you are just the driver of the airbourne bus. Put up and shut up or shift out. The choice is yours.
Yes, you are in control of an explosive filled rocket that you could, if you were mad enough, use in the same way as the 9/11 attackers did without the need to break into the flightdeck. On the otherhand, your fellow crew member may not be as mad as you and you might have to render him out of the equation with some noxious liquid before he would allow you to point the aircraft down. I would imagine he/she would protest if you didn't!

So, just like the rest of the people who pay your wages, the people who sell you your newspaper, the security staff who do the checking, you will be restricted to the same criteria for searches and restrictions. This will not be "just for a little while", you will be subject to them for all time. Just because they are tighter now than they were when you started flying with Mr Wright, get used to it. Stop complaining and act like a profesional rather than the (sorry in advance for those that are not) overpaid, over ego'ed people that you are.

Times change, the job changes, the requirement and processes change. Not all for the better but you have to make the choice. Live with it or find another job. The choice is yours.

bbbrown,

your ignorant rant (preceeded by clarification that you do not even have to pass airside on a daily basis) illustrates you complete lack of understanding re the logistical problems aircrew are having getting their bags through security.
You have shown that you are ill-informed re the problems and are not fit to comment sensibly.:ugh: :ugh:

Desperate

13th Sep 2006, 15:20

Time for this SLF to stick his head up above the parapet: If I, the paying customer, had been delayed for an hour because the pilots of my flight thought that they should not have to take their shoes off at the security checkpoint, when that was clearly a requirement, I would be furious with the pilots.

Globaliser - you've missed the point of all this. Confrontation, with the resulting stress and anxiety just before preparing a large passenger airliner for departure, leads to mistakes. Those mistakes enter the error chain. Maybe, because they're still fuming about the tw@ts in security, the pilots miss the 'firebreak' that's been created to keep you and your fellow passengers alive.

Would you want a surgeon to have a blazing row with someone minutes before he or she performed a delicate operation on you?

A lot of trust is placed in the two people flying the aircraft. Likewise the cabin crew looking after your safety. Likewise the engineers who maintain the aircraft. But when the sh*t hits the fan, it's those in the flight-deck who'll save your neck.

Best they carry out their duties without being wound up before departure.

Even though it clearly gives you pleasure to think about it.

6-String

13th Sep 2006, 15:52

Reads like flogging a dead horse here mate!

So, in summary: preventing articles from being taken on board is simply a smoke-screen designed to appease the idiots of the world and to let politicians off easy. There is only one way to stop terrorists from blowing our aircraft to smithereens and that is to prevent them from coming on board, or from coming into contact with them in the first place.

The End.

---
Credits go here--->
and here--->
etc--->

winkle

13th Sep 2006, 15:58

you would have every right to be p*55ed off with the crew globaliser, and you are right it was childish of the crew to act in this way, but dont you also see it as a warning that the crew were acting irrationally as in enuf is enuf, and they are now not as focused on the job in hand. can you imagine their mental state as they took the controls of a massive airliner loaded with people and fuel, not good. i would be more annoyed if they caused an incident because of this wouldnt you.
atco some good points so not brainless - comment retracted. you are 100%correct its not the bloke on the desk IT IS the airport managers failing to interpret the dft GUIDELINES and report back up the chain.
bbrown nice try but wrong on a number of points.
i dont want to see any us splitting on this so we should work together and start sorting out the muppets who impose these ridiculous rules, like i said they affect us all- be it the stressed hungry engineer at3am or the stressed out crew who then mistakenly wipe themselves and your family from the books.
i am not a whinger but these are the facts of life and the application of human factors.
if you want to attack pilots for their egoes etc then feel free its a free world isnt it. but to be able to cope with the job and succeed requires a certain type of personality and set of rare skills and it is this that produces the higher than normal egoes. human factors again. read the books.
my suggestion. lets all get together for a massive party then take the day off.
no atc no flying, no firemen no flying, no baggage handlers no flying, no cabin crew no flying, no engineers no flying, no pax no flying, no pilots no flying and last but by no means least no security no flying.
smile please:}

ATCO1987

13th Sep 2006, 16:02

Thank you winkle, nicely put.

My intention is not to cause trouble or fall out with anyone on the forum. I just wanted to give our side of events and try and compromise somewhere (perhaps Ive gone about it the wrong way in some words Ive used).

If I can do anything to help crew locally then I will, but chances are, as Ive said, that all I will receive is shrugged shoulders because thats management for you!

RevMan2

13th Sep 2006, 17:11

Air baggage rules to be relaxed

BBC link here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5343018.stm)

bbrown1664

13th Sep 2006, 20:30

You have shown that you are ill-informed re the problems and are not fit to comment sensibly

Just because I do not have to put up with the physical security checks every day does not mean I know little about the problem. I know many people who work in BAA security and typically get to hear their complaints about DfT, crew, management etc on a daily basis.

Many of you are missing the point.

Yes, the restrictions may be OTT.
Yes, Dft need to think again and it looks like they are.
Yes, all crew, passengers and staff should be subjected to the same checks on passing airside.

You are not above everyone else, you need checking just the same.

What you need to do is complain to your company about needing the toothpaste and reasonable food etc when airside and let them provide it if you cant get your own there.

It is not me with the chips on my shoulder, try looking at yourselves once in a while and realise that you are just the same as everone else.

BusyB

13th Sep 2006, 20:42

bbrown1664,

I've explained it to you once!

"let them provide it "

Its still got to get airside you're missing the point again. Why don't you just worry about your problems and leave us on our forum to discuss ours?:ugh:

haughtney1

13th Sep 2006, 21:03

Many of you are missing the point

BBrown, buddy you are missing the point, we are not the same as everyone else, we are the ones responsible for the safe and efficient flight of up to 400 tonnes of aircraft 400 pax, and around 200,000 ltrs of flamable jet fuel:=

You are not above everyone else, you need checking just the same

It is not me with the chips on my shoulder, try looking at yourselves once in a while and realise that you are just the same as everone else

By definition we are different(is that soo difficult a concept to grasp BBrown?), note I didn't say above or better, but different.
As security vetted, trained professionals, flightcrew as group are part of the solution, not the problem.

What is unhelpful however is the armchair "expert" who thinks that their opinion is valid simply because they "know" someones sisters cousins aunties nephew who makes the tea for BAA employees.

spannersatcx

14th Sep 2006, 07:17

Musical instruments will also be allowed on board again, after professional musicians complained the measures were hindering them.

Seems musicians have more clout than pilots.:eek:

Accident Prawn

14th Sep 2006, 08:15

Well, I HAVE written to the dft and this is the answer I have received today:

Dear Captain XYZ,

Thanks for your note and I appreciate the issues you raise. All I can say at this stage is that we are working hard, with representatives from industry, to see how the current measures can be adjusted in light of information about the threat (still prevailing at a high level) and in light of operational experience.

This review will include a close look at the measures that impact on operating crew. Please be assured that this is not about a lack of trust in the flight crew community. We are simply trying to work in difficult circumstances to arrive at a set of measures that deal with the threat in a consistent and effective way while also enabling the operation and retaining the support of staff such as yourself.

Your feedback is helpful and appreciated.

With best regards,

David.

David Sterland
Head of Aviation Security Compliance

Transport Security & Contingencies Directorate,
Department for Transport,
5th Floor, Zone 13,
Southside,
105 Victoria Street,
London SW1E 6DT.

[email protected]

Telephone: + 44 (0) 207 944 2592
Fax: + 44 (0) 207 944 2172

PENKO

14th Sep 2006, 10:02

If a securityman lets you through with a leatherman, it is because he wishes so. A leatherman is one of THE most obvious things to spot on an x-ray machine.

You know, I've grown used to the new procedures. They do not make sense, but hey, I adapt. What embarasses me is every time one of my fellow aviators thinks he has to make some wisecrack comment with the socalled 'jobsworth'.

Come on, grow up, let BALPA deal with it on the level where it matters.

Globaliser

14th Sep 2006, 10:14

Globaliser - you've missed the point of all this. Confrontation, with the resulting stress and anxiety just before preparing a large passenger airliner for departure, leads to mistakes. Those mistakes enter the error chain. Maybe, because they're still fuming about the tw@ts in security, the pilots miss the 'firebreak' that's been created to keep you and your fellow passengers alive.No, I haven't missed any of the point of this.

The restrictions may be stupid, they may wind flight crew up in an undesirable way, and they may need changing - perhaps quickly.

But at MNL that day, the crew were faced with a fait accompli. The restrictions were there. The aggravation was there. Nothing they did that day was going to change anything that day. So they had a choice - they could either go along with what they had to go along with, or they could fight screeners who had no authority to change the rules that they had been told to adopt.

In those circumstances, I would much rather that the crew had themselves decided to avoid any confrontation, to keep calm and to just get on with a sad fact of that day's life. Getting angry or upset (if they did) was not going to change anything - in fact, if anything it would have made their mental state worse.

And most of all, I would rather that they did not delay the flight however understandably unhappy they might have been that they had to go through the procedure.

Lord Lucan

14th Sep 2006, 12:39

Globaliser,
In those circumstances, I would much rather that the crew had themselves decided to avoid any confrontation, to keep calm and to just get on with a sad fact of that day's life. Getting angry or upset (if they did) was not going to change anything - in fact, if anything it would have made their mental state worse.

I agree with what you say. And the overwhelming majority of crew are doing exactly as you suggest.

But, for some, there comes a time when confronted with this mindnumbing stupidity for the millionth time to say: "I'm Mad As Hell and I'm Not Going to Take it Anymore":)

silverelise

14th Sep 2006, 13:06

I have to agree with globaliser. If anyone was responsible for the crew being wound up before embarking on the flight it is the crew themselves. Arguing with the people on the front line is always going to be a no-win situation. Better to keep a calm head and comply at the time, and raise the matter in a more appropriate manner through the correct channels at a more appropriate time.
And I must admit I find all this nonsense about "why do they take my toothpaste away when I have an axe in the cockpit" quite staggering. Are people really that naive that they think an airside pass means the person carrying it does not need to be searched? At the security point everyone needs to be treated the same regardless of if they have pointy hats and passes or not. And as someone else mentioned, it's important that there are seen to be no exemptions so that the message gets across that there are no loopholes to be exploited (even though we all know there are others in the system)

aidanf

14th Sep 2006, 15:37

Well then what's it to be?

A. Hurrah for the brave pilots exposing the ridiculous 'security' measures for what they are

or

B. Boo to the pilots, thinking they're better than everyone else.

... you decide

(from www.breakingnews.ie)

Pilot refuses shoe search*
14/09/2006 - 3:21:33 PM
A Qantas Airways flight to Australia was delayed after two of its pilots refused to remove their shoes as part of Manila airport’s anti-terrorism measures, prompting the airline to suspend one of them, officials said today.
The pilots on the Manila-Sydney flight on Tuesday evening refused to comply with the security regulation, said chief superintendent Andres Caro, head of the police Aviation Security Group.
“They were arguing that they were the pilots of the plane and they are not a threat. But who knows the face of a terrorist?” Caro said.
“We are implementing what is being implemented consistently for everybody.”

markflyer6580

14th Sep 2006, 15:39

Good on 'em,about time.:ok:

kooyheier

14th Sep 2006, 15:59

If we want to bring the aircraft down. we'll do that ourselves.... We've got a woppin big axe on the flightdeck.... and oh.. we can reach the controls... These security measures for flightdeck are such a F*cking waste of time....

Good on the chap.....

luc

14th Sep 2006, 16:03

Or...just trying to find a reason to stay longer in Manila...

B Sousa

14th Sep 2006, 16:07

Not an Airline driver, but its about time someone said Whoa to this BS . Problem is he will sacrafice his career and nobody will be any safer. Further I dont beleive he will find much solidarity in his co-workers. Maybe if all the pilots stood up it may bring the problem to someones attention.

Im sitting in Las Vegas now and cant get on the Airport as the Badging Office decided to change badges and it has taken me almost two weeks to turn in my CURRENT and ACCEPTED badge and wait for ELECTRONIC Fingerprint results to return. (electroinc meaning it takes only a few seconds to identify me) The same fingerprints they have been taking for the past 36 years.
Yes I am also Pi55ed off.

TheOddOne

14th Sep 2006, 16:13

Or...

C. Foolish way to lose a well-paid job.

Now listen, We've all got our views about the relative worth of Aviation Security measures (I'm keeping mine to my self, thank you very much!) but those of us who grub about on the ground airside have to go through the same deal, sometimes several times a shift. Just do it.

The Odd One

ps I'm now REALLY good at standing on one leg, undoing my opposite shoelace, stand on the other leg, repeat routine, shuffle forward in the queue, step out of shoes, present to guard, along with the bundles of papers, keys, phone etc that I similarly have to juggle whilst untying shoelaces. Perhaps I could get a post-redundancy job in a circus.

who the daddy

14th Sep 2006, 16:22

Rather foolish I must admit.......shooting himself in the foot (excuse the pun)

PS i am a Pilot and have to go through the same checks

Oh yeh that axe you mention is also accessible to the cabin crew, so where do we stop.........

LNAV VNAV

14th Sep 2006, 16:25

Did the pilots refuse to have their briefcases x-rayed as well?

Because if it's not ok to go through the shoe part of security why would it be ok to do the rest of it?

fredchabbage

14th Sep 2006, 16:28

maybe he'll get the boot ?:ugh:

Green Guard

14th Sep 2006, 16:35

If anybody has the problem with this NEW EM PROC
he or she should first and ONLY contact the PRIME
originator of all this 80ul5hit
MR George Double U

B Sousa

14th Sep 2006, 16:39

Green Guard, maybe you could go a bit further back and say it was a bunch of Mxxxxxx.......
Ooops, we can Say George Bush, but lets not offend the Mxxxxxx

F900EX

14th Sep 2006, 16:43

"If anybody has the problem with this NEW EM PROC
he or she should first and ONLY contact the PRIME
originator of all this 80ul5hit
MR George Double U"

Not a big fan of the W myself.. However I can assure you that the massive recent over reaction in the U.K was far worse than anything we had to endure here in the US.

In general I believe TSA is being far more pragmatic of late. Could be a ruling from the top to stop taking the p**s.

Taildragger67

14th Sep 2006, 17:08

This topic has been getting a good airing on the D&G boards at http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=243607

eidah

14th Sep 2006, 17:24

[quote=aidanf;2849125]Well then what's it to be?

A. Hurrah for the brave pilots exposing the ridiculous 'security' measures for what they are

or

B. Boo to the pilots, thinking they're better than everyone else.

... you decide

(from www.breakingnews.ie (http://www.breakingnews.ie))

Tough one to call because as has been said by many people it dosent matter what you take through security as a pilot or even cabin crew you can take down an aircraft. However his atttitude was pretty arogant and we all have to go through it, it is a pain it probably dose not make it any safer however is it really worth the hastle because no matter how much you arque the point that you are a pilot and I can crash the plane into what ever you want you have breached a security law and BAA will just make an example of you.

Pilotdom

14th Sep 2006, 17:43

Im sorry to say that I think the captain or first officer was wrong to refuse the search.

In the current climate everyone must be searched. I dont think that I should be searched when I go on a plane but what makes me better than anybody else?

A captain should lead by example to his crew aswell. How does he know if they are genuine cabin crew or have a false identity. If a cabin crew member refused a search and was let on an aircraft and did something,im sure said captain would be calling for searches.

I say tough S@@t if he looses his job.

bananas_oz

14th Sep 2006, 17:53

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=238656&page=45
Qantas pilots refuse shoe screening in Manilla
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/qan...827007542.html (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/qantas-pilots-refuse-shoe-security-check/2006/09/13/1157827007542.html)
A Qantas Airways flight was delayed for more than one hour in Manila after its pilots refused to remove their shoes during security check, an airport official said today.

Seems like this could be the start of something. Eventually they did have to comply.

Golden Ticket

14th Sep 2006, 18:18

Making a stand may be fine but the poor guy is standing with just his fellow pilot, the rest of us just comment on forums. Accepting that this is the lot of crew these days we may as well get on with it, I bought slip on shoes to save myself the hassle of the shoelaces. I'll be honest the authorities have got me beat, so long as they don't ask me to do anything dangerous rather than pointless I'll just keep plodding on.

LNAV VNAV

14th Sep 2006, 18:27

From Wikipedia. I thought it was relevant to this thread. I wonder if the head of security mentioned below had to go through security at the airport.

Known as the Lockerbie bombing and the Lockerbie air disaster in the UK, it became the subject of Britain's largest criminal inquiry, led by its smallest police force, Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary. It was widely regarded as an assault on a symbol of the United States, and with 189 of the victims being Americans, it stood as the deadliest attack on American civilians until the attacks of September 11, 2001.
After a three year joint investigation by the Scottish Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary and the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, during which 15,000 witness statements were taken, indictments for murder were issued on November 13, 1991, against Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence officer and the head of security for Libyan Arab Airlines (LAA), and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, the LAA station manager in Luqa Airport, Malta.

Harry_45

14th Sep 2006, 18:33

We know that any pilot can crash any plane, we also know that any employee that has airside access can conceal and pass on to another person anything they wish if security checks were not in place. A pilot need not risk their own life nor that of their passengers to be involved in a terrorist attack. Surely it makes sense for eveybody (and that should mean everybody) to be security checked in exactly the same way.

LNAV VNAV

14th Sep 2006, 18:47

That's right: You are not checked so that you don't take anything on your flight, you are checked so that you don't take anything airside.

RevMan2

14th Sep 2006, 18:56

By definition we are different.......
As security vetted, trained professionals, flightcrew as group are part of the solution, not the problem.

Caution: Entering Irony and PC-free zone

Nigel here

OK chaps, so we've reached an agreement with DfT that we - as security vetted, trained professionals - can take our flight kits through security, shoes on, heads high.
After all, we are different. By definition. (That Haughtney chappy said so. Good sort. Know his sister well)

Not quite sure about the waitresses from the Fast Food bit , though. I mean, they might perhaps just slip in under the "security vetted" clause, but I wouldn't really think that 6 weeks being taught how to pour mineral water without spilling it all over the punters qualifies them as "trained professionals"
And I really don't think that that all those foreign Johnnies should have been let through with their toothpaste. The Krauts are probably OK and the cousins from across the pond and the colonies (the white ones, at least) too, but they're certainly going to have to keep an eye on the Frogs, Wops and Dagos and the like. Never could trust the buggers - just look what happened in 1940. Keeled over without a twitch. And God forbid that the darkies and ragheads slip through unchecked - they're certainly not security vetted, trained professionals......

Exiting Irony and PC-free zone

Get real, people. Where do you want to draw the line? Do you really expect the DfT to lump the security vetting of the Kyrgyzstan/Kazakhstan etc authorities with that of First World countries? Which isn't perfect in the first place - a dozen security screeners at SYD with serious criminal records....?

Are you really demanding that all flight crew, security vetted, trained professionals all, are exempt from security procedures?

That's what it reads like, and the blindness concerns me somewhat....

Warlock2000

14th Sep 2006, 19:08

"Gutsiest move I ever seen" Well done chap!

By all means, if a flight crew member arrives at a security checkpoint alone (ie they're dead-heading etc) they should be required to go through the normal security rigmarole as they could be anyone, but, if a whole crew turns up with a gen-dec, what do these security geniuses think someone can "dress up" like a Pilot and no-one on the crew will notice the EXTRA driver? :rolleyes:

Loose rivets

14th Sep 2006, 19:10

I made sacrificial protests in 1970 and again in 1982. Both times I ‘lost it' when the bulsh1t became so ludicrous that I had failed to maintain my...erm, decorum. Both times I could have been sacked without question.

I think I was the only one that did more than moan, in our outfit anyway.

You have to make a decision. Calm representation, or all out stopping of aviation until this crap stops. One or two poor souls that make a stand...and then pay for it, will do little to help and a lot to wreck their careers.

The only fair way is to vote on it, professionals world wide, finally saying yes or no to action. With forums like this collecting the opinion....no, we've got opinion...the promised intention of refusing to accept the bull to the point of stopping the flight as of a certain date.

If the majority are willing to accept the inconvenience, then the minority could reasonably be expected to comply. Of course, when I say inconvenience, I'm talking about factors that may affect health of the crew or even flight safety. To my mind, even the absence of my knife being at hand may have been the difference of cutting jammed straps, or frying alive.

As I've said before, I'm no longer directly affected, but my blood boils when I think of totally unqualified people taking away what could become a crew's harness knife.

exloadie

14th Sep 2006, 19:15

Ok lipstick is allowed first of all.

At the end of the day, no one is trusted in an airport. Thats why everyone is searched. An RZ pass doesnt mean unlimited, no strings attached RZ access. Again, dont blame me, blame the DfT. As I keep stressing; NOT OUR RULES!

Yes crew should be trusted to bring what they like in regards food stuffs but unfortunately the DfT arent allowing it. Take it up with them. I'll say again; dont take it out on us please because its not our doing.

Why is it when anyone going airside where I work have all their "liquids" removed from their possesion,usually by someone either drinking out of a bottle or can and or eating a yogurt , after they have been through the "scanner to go airside" Ithought it was one rule for all

ATCO1987

14th Sep 2006, 19:21

ChristiaanJ

14th Sep 2006, 19:28

It certainly is a rule for all. When I have to take liquids from passengers, I stress to them myself that even I wouldnt be able to take it through. If security staff are drinking whilst confiscating liquids at your airport then thats just unprofessional.Are you suggesting there's any security staff that's "professional"?
They "follow the rules".
Of course, they don't apply to them.
They're there to make sure "the rules are followed".
Following them themselves.... you kidding?

Warlock2000

14th Sep 2006, 19:29

Quite right.

Another security faux pas which gets to me is that certain countries insist that inbound and outbound flight s have cutlery knives made of plastic, but forks can be metal.

Guess no-one's gonna get forked on flights these days anyway, so that's ok! :D

sky9

14th Sep 2006, 19:59

If you think through the logic of Airport Security, the pilots should not be allowed to board the aircraft because they would then be in possession of a dangerous weapon i.e. a guided missile that could be crashed at will. 9/11 would have taught security that.

Dualbleed

14th Sep 2006, 20:12

Have you ever tried to take the crash axe with you to the hotel on a stopover and bring it back out to the airplane the next morning. Makes a very interresting conversation with security robots, as it is a no go. :}

AirQuake

14th Sep 2006, 20:26

Perhaps they should try flying from NCL it seems the initial checks aren't so strict (for passengers): see link.... http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/chroniclelive/eveningchronicle/tm_objectid=17745780%26method=full%26siteid=50081%26headline =breached-name_page.html

......I just love the mothers statement!!!

coopervane

14th Sep 2006, 21:59

Have not trawled thru every reply to this thread but has anyone wondered about the health issues of all those sweaty feet on the same bit of floor when requested to remove your shoes? Just think, all those varookas and fungal infections.......urrrrrrrrgh

Ok most blokes have socks on but plenty of ladies tread through there bearfoot.

Another thing that I wonder about. Does every individual item sold in the shops airside get scanned before it goes on sale or is it delivered direct to the airside shops? I reckon the delivery truck comes to the airside goods entrance and get a quick skeg in the back by the jobs worth police.

Makes a mockery of confiscating goods bought landside don't you think?

Coop & smelly feet Bear:=

matblack

14th Sep 2006, 22:15

Took an EZY flight out of stansted last week. Sure enough it was a shoes off job, restricted size hand luggage etc. On the return the following day from CPH it seemed similar security to normal. ie. no need to take off shoes or belt, no need to lift shoes up for a visual, and some other passengers hand luggage was the same old bulky luggage with those annoying wheelie cases that always seem to get under you feet when in a crowded airport. Surely a potential terrorist would take the return flight into the UK rather than the flight out unless of course these airports have much more sophisticated foot & baggage scanners that eliminate the need for the checks.

rudolf

15th Sep 2006, 00:28

My bestest war story.

Not that many years ago, before I left the RAF and discovered a little bit of CRM.

Can't say where, can't say when. But I flew into and out of an international airport where things had become a little interesting. Security had been taken over by the American Military, I happened to have under my jacket a little 9mm pea shooter.

Walked through the metal detector in uniform, and guess what, it made a big bleep.

Lifted my jacket and displayed my legitimate hardware, I hasten to add that I was in slightly camouflaged uniform.

The security official made me and the rest of the crew go back to the other side of the metal detector, remove said pistols, take the magazine with real bullets out and put both parts through the x-ray machine!

Not sure what they were looking for, maybe hidden explosives in the bullets or, god forbid, exploding lasagne.

All I can say is that the current regulations are absolutely stupid, but whilst we have 110% rules oriented people carrying them out, there will be no leeway. Common sense would be wonderful at the moment, as always, but I can't see it happening.

Rudolf

AUTOGLIDE

15th Sep 2006, 07:50

The biggest effect is on security staff. These rules, however ludicrous you may feel them to be, are government imposed. The airport security staff have to carry them out, usually under a camera, and there is no tolerance for rule deviation. What happens? Every day I see airline crew winging, complaining and even shouting at security staff, it's disgusting, It's not their fault, these 'robots' get sacked if they don't do it. If you don't like it then vote your MP out next election time, before then please just politely tolerate the lunacy like all other airport workers until it passes. The fact you have a potentially deadly aircraft is neither here nor there, I have a locker full of sharp tools, so be it, rules apply to all.

Crossunder

15th Sep 2006, 08:05

I have actually met security staff with a sense of logic and good judgement and it comeslike a breath of fresh air every now and then. It can be done, and it should be done. But most of them are just like religious extremists, interpreting every rule the most conservative and stupid way. They're doing the terrorists' job, in fact...

FCS Explorer

15th Sep 2006, 08:31

another bureaucratic act of dumbness.
the EU high commission wants to limit the quantity of liquids carried by pax. nothing new so far. BUT they're not going all the way. they're aiming for 125ml per person. furthermore gels, pastes and shampoo's (in case someone can fit their head in one of those tiny lavatory sinks to wash their hair) for personal use can still be carried along. unless you bought them in a duty free store. then they have to be in a sealed bag. [bag will have a label saying: dear terrorists, we will be really angry with you, if you open this bag and you will get no cookies in jail, if you survive your suicidal attack!].

in the mean time i'm still entering apron areas without showing the i.d. and authorisation that i do hold (and carry in my flight kit). the stripes do the trick. just don't smile; before 6 a.m. local that's way suspicious. one the other hand: what's the use of showing some i.d. that a 6-year-old with a pc can fake in 5 minutes?:E

eidah

15th Sep 2006, 08:31

Mick Stability

15th Sep 2006, 08:40

If toothpaste and violins were dangerous, they'd have taken them off trains and ships and the Channel Tunnel as well. This long period of 'consultation' is their way of trying to save face from a situation that makes them look ridiculous. They're simply hoping that if they wait long enough, they can quietly walk away whilst no-one's looking.

After all, have you seen what these 14 accused have been charged with? Maliciously administering spot cream, being in charge of a public transport aeroplane with intent to wash their hair, or was it recklessly playing a chromatic scale on a tuba?

No. It was 12 counts of receiving firmearms training and two released without charge. Now I am in the front row of standing up to the terrorist threat, let me at 'em. But this lot are making a mockery of a deadly serious situation.:mad:

Rainboe

15th Sep 2006, 09:40

That post is stupid- surely you know that it is against a suicide bomber's Human Rights if he survives his mission and gets imprisoned and has his cookie allowance withheld? He will be entitled to incredible compensation from the daft culture that cossets such people whilst they plot against society. Who else would give one of these firebrands, under the motability scheme, a large Ford people mover with satnav whilst he preaches our takeover and downfall? Meanwhile Pa Rainboe, who spent 6 years fighting for this country and a working life in the Service gets not so much as an electric buggy.

So how come my ID gets swiped without fail, and every time it is shoes off, belt off some of the time, and confiscation of my Orbit chewing gum? Really good I'm denied my toothpaste.....except at my hands will be 65 tons of metal, people and petrol (not so long ago 400 tons of it)-so all the effort making sure I don't carry 'forbidden substances' (like, God forbid, chewing gum) would be better expended elsewhere. The usual solid and reliable British ruling classes seem to have been replaced by hysterical teenagers shooting rules from the hip! One can only shake ones head at the stupidity in full gallop at the moment.

PENKO

15th Sep 2006, 10:02

Hiding behind the rules. "I was under orders". Makes me think of similar excuses made some 60+ years ago...
I have actually met security staff with a sense of logic and good judgement and it comeslike a breath of fresh air every now and then. It can be done, and it should be done. But most of them are just like religious extremists, interpreting every rule the most conservative and stupid way. They're doing the terrorists' job, in fact...

And please tell us now the difference in treatment these enlightened security staff gave you. Because I cannot imagine it to be much different from wat anyone else of the socalled 'jobsowrth' is doing, unless they grossly neglected to follow their s.o.p.

I mean, how much logic can you let loose on the edict that:
Crew get searched just as anyone else who gets near to aircraft.

Once again, these rules may make no sense at all. But showing contempt towards these people whoose legitimate job it is to carry them out only reflects badly on yourself. Unless of course you can answer my first question in an informed an convincing way.

radeng

15th Sep 2006, 10:29

<Have not trawled thru every reply to this thread but has anyone wondered about the health issues of all those sweaty feet on the same bit of floor when requested to remove your shoes? Just think, all those varookas and fungal infections.......urrrrrrrrgh>

I'm told that Immigration at Gatwick complained through the Union about this on Health and Safety grounds and now get plastic bags to put on their feet. And they have them at LHR T1 fastrack if you ask.

NWT

15th Sep 2006, 11:53

The idea of reaching airside without much check of your ID is not new...I have recently work in a major New York airport...(will remain nameless) and the only check when going airside for staff was a quick glance at the ID, not close check, no swipe etc. the bags i carried were not looked at at all. this was not a one off it is the norm at that airport...and we worry about a tube of toothpaste..!

Pax Vobiscum

15th Sep 2006, 13:50

Matt (Daily Telegraph) says it all, really;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/08/16/matt.gif

Crossunder

15th Sep 2006, 16:36

PENKO:
Yes, it involved breaking one your precious SOPs. :hmm: This particular time I did not have to send my laptop separately through the scanner (it was in my flight bag), because the person in question was able to use his equipment properly. It is those little things that count. When a colleague (yes, I consider them my colleagues) shows some good judgement and understanding, and treats me like the safety asset I am. We were alone at the checkpoint, both of us know that the rules are ridiculous, so why go through with them? It's a pain in the a$$ to remove everything from a jam-packed flight bag, and then try to re-arrange it back to fit in there again, every GD time I to pass through the Sharade Portal. Espesially when the morons insist that the ultra-thin sleeve on my laptop has to be removed as well. Again - not a VERY big deal, but it all adds up. If there had been some form of logic to it, then I'd have accepted it 100%. But today's situation is intolerable.
And I bet that people like yourself would follow any rule just because it's a rule. If some politician told you to shove a grape fruit up you butt and sing Mary had a little lamb every time you showed up for work - would you do it? ****, I bet you just might give it a try - I mean, it being SOP and all... I would never have taken a job where all I did was harass professional mechanics, pilots and families with small children and suspect the next-door neighbor of being a terrorist. The speed limit might be 50 mph, but don't we all break this from time-to time? According to your logic, this would be absolutely unthinkable for you? Or? The biggest problem is that these so-called security men/women (most of them without any worth-while and relevant education) all too often start interpreting the rules like Al Qaeda interpret the Koran. I mean - confiscating the pilots' tooth paste? Gimme a break... :ugh:
The terrorists are watching us from the outside and laughing. We're hunting witches among ourselves, spending billions of pounds on meaningless security measures. Imagine if every penny was used to upgrade runways, buy new aircraft, install better approach- and nav. aids, improve on de-icing systems etc? THAT would be helpful. What we're doing now is just a waste of money. Hell - send a billion pound's worth of technology, food and medicine to Africa, and you'll have saved a hell of a lot more lives. Guaranteed.

moist

15th Sep 2006, 18:59

Crossunder,

A very good post, congrats.
I can't see the muppets being able to reply to that.......................

Security Mandarins, come on read this post and defend your position!:ugh:

winkle

15th Sep 2006, 19:56

nice one crossunder.
comments from the floor?
must say this is a good thread has the press picked up on it yet, matts cartoon was good, we understand it but maybe he should have been wearing a pilots/cabin crew/atc/fireman uniform. the subtlty of having his wife search him is good ie a known person best form of id check is personal recognition.

carousel

15th Sep 2006, 20:07

Exellent news from STN security you may now carry baked beans thru screening points. Not quite so good is that they can't be in a tin. Not sure if good or bad news is that you can take baked beans thru loose!!

PENKO

15th Sep 2006, 21:34

Crossunder, are you a pilot? Do you take off overweight sometimes. Fudge the loadsheet?

Do you cruise with the clackers on when you're in a hurry? Couple of knots faster than VMO won't break the plane? Not with your experience handling the machine?

No, Crossunder, I think you are a sensible guy. You know you can brake the rules but you better be 100% sure you know what you are doing, or you may follow them and be safe. Yeah, you may speed a bit on the road in your car, but when it comes to your work, you are the guy who does not fudge a load sheet and who does not willfully cruise with the clackers on. You do not break those rules. Your a professional.

Aren't you?

Please criticise the rules at will, but leave the people stuck in the middle alone.

ChristiaanJ

15th Sep 2006, 22:29

Penko has a very valid point.....

Pilots follow rules, be they Vmo or MTOW for the current runway length and wind.

They may be a bit more hi-tech than the rules the security people have to work to.

Either may have dire consequences if not adhered to.

Some rules are more sane than others. Up to you to challenge them the right way and at the right level.

Quoting "Befehl ist Befehl" is tasteless, to put it mildly. You are not being asked to murder people, unlike the people the security staff are trying to keep off the planes.

winkle

16th Sep 2006, 09:38

wot, like the pilots!
why is it different at every base and can local managers impose their own rules as they like.
i want to know why i have to remove my shoes when i go thru security and the pax dont. protecting who from who. this is not random this is seen by me as spite against the aircrew. answer that please.
no matter how difficult, i go thru being calm and smiling, but i am wound up like a spring inside and i bet i am not the only one.

ATCO1987

16th Sep 2006, 09:39

If pax arent removing their shoes at the search comb of a UK airport at the moment then AFAIK that airport is breaching the current DfT requirements.

Piltdown Man

16th Sep 2006, 10:12

Crossunder

16th Sep 2006, 10:20

I hope that I am a sensible guy. I don't tweak the loadsheet, I don't exceed the Vmo (willfully) and I always read the checklists and brief the same old approaches time and again. But I do get carried away on the Forum sometimes ;)
I think I have made my position on this matter very clear, so I'll refrain from any further negative comments! I hope that we'll get a sort of biometric screening system up-and-running in not too long. The proposed U.S. system of easing up on frequent travellers and staff seems like a step in the right direction.
To quote Benjamin Franklin;
"Those who give up liberty for the sake of security, deserve neither liberty nor security."
Blue skies and happy landings! :)

PENKO

16th Sep 2006, 12:01

PENKO, I can see where you are coming from but everyday there is only one face of Security we meet, the low achiever from school without imagination who will follow rules. No matter how obsurd, they will follow the rules. Like a few years ago when you carried a small pocket knife through, "You can't take knife, I'll have to give it to the Captain!" "Yes, I am the Captain" you reply etc. I could go on with others. It doesn't justify having a pop at these people, but that why it happens - frustration!
Our problem is that BALPA has not been listen to, the pilots have not been listened to those with real imagination are not listened to either. It also appears that people with an IQ less than the "friskers" are driving our country's security policies. We desperately need a proper security policy, program and enforcement but as long as nobody gets hurt, our damn politicians and civil servants can appear to be "doing something" and they can keep others out lest they rock the boat and show them to be the incompetent idiots they are.
PM

Ok, let's look at things in a slightly different way. By the way, I am not going to state that security personell are the brightest minds on the planet. But what prompted me to react this time again, is the mentio of them being low-achievers.

Assuming you are a pilot again, do you not hit a grey area every so often on the line? A problem arises that is not mentioned clearly in the manual, but still a problem that may have some ramifications if dealt with 'improperly'. What do 99% of us do in a situation like that? Even though we have plenty of brains to come up with a right enough answer, we switch over in 'dumb play it safe mode' and call OPS. Why? Cause we follow the rules.

This happens in a similar way at the security checkpoint. Daily. They hit a grey area. They go uuuuuuhhhhh. And look stupid. Just as stupid as you sound when calling OPS. (absolutely no offence meant whatsoever;))

Piltdown Man

16th Sep 2006, 12:43

PENKO - I can't see things for your angle. The standard security frisker believes that they are doing a very worthwhile job and that the checks they do on us are vital. It is also easy to get the impression that aircrew are perceived as being the enemy by the manner of their treatment of us. Many passengers would also see themselves being classed as such as well. Unfortunately, because of the way the regulations are written and the manner of their enforcement there are so many holes in our security as to make their checking of us totally pointless. And this is a statement which no frisker or security manager agrees.

As for your comment regarding security grey areas, there are none. They, unlike us are not allowed to use their judgement. They follow rules, no if's or but's. But when I'm at work, I TRY to follow rules. Some are easy - speed limits, weight limits, duty times etc. but if I need to bust them to ensure the safety of the aircraft, I will. And that is the difference between them and us.

Finally, when I call Ops or my Tech Pilot, I don't feel stupid. It's to get or give information, to get help to solve a problem, fix a passenger's flight or whatever. I'm part of team whose job it is to get planes and passengers from A to B as safely and on time as possible, unlike...

PM

MaxReheat

16th Sep 2006, 13:52

'Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools' - QED?

FLIPSIDEUP

16th Sep 2006, 17:33

Piltdown man. What an apt name. Recognised as being a forgery and did not stand up to scrutiny. What a bumptious ass you are. As a semi retired senior manager of a very large US company working within security, I can vouch for the fact that most of our security people (like aircrew) are neither educationally nor intellectually challenged. The dft set the rules in the UK (good or bad) and allow no room to use judgement or discretion. Black or White it has to be. I think that your juvenile posting will work wonders for the security v aircrew relationship.

BusyB

16th Sep 2006, 18:40

FLIPSIDEUP,

Just explain why there are all these different interpretations at different airports, all within the UK.

I'm not slanging anybody but the whole episode is encouraging pilots to put up with harassment that linits their ability to do their job as they would like to and pressurises them to continue to "keep the show on the road" despite their misgivings. You operate out of your base, all is well, you nightstop, operate out of another airport and items are now confiscated!!

Grow up and stop blaming pilots for getting p****d off.:ugh:

Piltdown Man

16th Sep 2006, 20:04

FLIPSIDEUP - You are part of the damn problem! For starters, you obviously cannot read or don't like what you do read! As I stated earlier, our friends who do the frisking are not allowed any leeway. I'm not expecting any! It's the DfT (in the UK) and the politicians who are the problem and to a certain extent the management of the security at airports with their various "local" rules.

Finally, any explanation as to why a person with a high interlect, excellent examination grades from university and a deeply inquisitive, probing mind would do the job of security (putting up with juveniles like myself), hour after hour, day by day etc. would be gratefully received by the majority of readers of this thread.

I'll stand up to any scrutiny and justify my position to anyone. Currently we have a problem which need fixing - ie. a lack of security. The solution does not that mean that you tell those who have a different opinion to yours to shut up or call them names. I'd suggest you do us all a favour and fully retire!
PM

Gnirren

16th Sep 2006, 20:17

Security personnel at airports have a job to go to because airlines fly people around, and pilots fly their planes.

Airlines however do not exist to provide security personnel with a job to go to, this might be worth keeping in mind.

PENKO

16th Sep 2006, 22:51

Let's agree to disagree and finish this part of the discussion with a little useless trivia (I mean, how much time can I spend defending the good people who might confiscate my hair gel tomorrow):

Even the one time future queen of The Netherlands worked as an airport security friskerette at some point in her life at Schiphol Airport. And her former boyfriend the prince, he's a pilot!

Oh well. Maybe that's why she didn't become the queen, him being a pilot and all...;)

charterguy

16th Sep 2006, 23:40

Just found this in the Chicago Sun-Times and thought it might take your mind off the sandwiches, soups, sauces etc. you had confiscated. ;)
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-pump24.html
Evidence ruled sufficient in p*nis pump case
The female airport security guard held the small, black, squeezable rubber object she'd just plucked out of Mardin Amin's backpack, and eyed it suspiciously.
Standing next to his mother, an embarrassed Amin whispered out of one corner of his mouth that it was a "pump" -- as in a p*nis pump. The guard misunderstood the Iraqi man and thought she heard the word "bomb," Amin's attorney told a Cook County judge Wednesday.
"He told her it's a pump," attorney Eileen O'Neill-Burke said as a cluster of burly, snickering police officers watched the court proceedings. "He's standing with his mother. Of course he's not going to shout this out."
But after listening to the female guard testify she heard Amin "clearly" say the word bomb during the Aug. 16 incident at O'Hare Airport, Judge Gerald Winiecki decided there was enough evidence for the case to move forward. Amin, 29, is charged with felony disorderly conduct and faces up to three years in prison if convicted.
Hid it from mom
Prosecutors say Amin, who was on his way to Turkey with his mother and two small children last week, twice told security officials that he was carrying a bomb. Only later did he admit he had initially lied about the rubber object's true function because he didn't want his mother to know he was carrying a p*nis pump, prosecutors say.
After Wednesday's hearing, a mostly jovial Amin said airport security officials never gave him an opportunity to explain the misunderstanding. And he said he would never utter the word "bomb" while going through security.
'Half of America' uses it
"Come on -- what do you think?" said Amin, who lives in Skokie and works for a janitorial service.
Amin may not want his mother to know he has a p*nis pump, but he said he doesn't consider it an unusual device to own.
"It's normal," he said. "Half of America they use it."
Amin is due back in court Sept. 13
Regards
CG

ChicoChico

17th Sep 2006, 01:01

Anyone who is dumb enough to try and carry one of those on board an aircraft deserves to be in trouble....:bored:

brain fade

17th Sep 2006, 09:46

Chico

I s'pose you leave yours at home?;)

Mentaleena

17th Sep 2006, 11:21

FLIPSIDEUP

While you and your "well educated" mates are frisking us aircrew (daily the same ones), do you REALLY think you are preventing Terrorism?
I think you are simply needing to justify your existence, by following idiotic orders, from almost equally educated goons above you!
Lets face it, have you ever managed to stop someone on the staff gate trying to REALLY take some sh*t through in order to REALLY commit an act of terrorism? No? I wouldn't have thought so.
So how on earth are you still able to pretend that what you all are doing is even remotely worthwile.
I'd hate to remind you AGAIN that after confiscating my lipstick and hairgel (having done your "job"), you are then furnishing me with my huge missile full of fuel, a load of poor victims to slaughter, oh and a stonking great fireaxe, just in case my pot noodle didn't work!!!
GET REAL :D

Bomber Harris

17th Sep 2006, 12:01

Well I think you are all staying quite calm in this potentially heated debated (except for the "semi retired senior manager of a very large US company working within security" who got a bit hot under the collar in one post).

I don't know anything about security. As a pilot I do what I am told and I am happy to comply. The "semi retired senior manager of a very large US company working within security" tells us it has to be black or white and that the staff have no room for judgement......I don't know, if you say so I believe you.

But when going through security I always wonder is it a "shoes on" or "shoes off" day? Is it a "laptop in" or "laptop out" day? But I don't care. I just laugh to myself at the inconsistancies and then worry it doesn't effect my level of safety. But as a lowly pilot I can do very very little about the security agencies.

However, what you all have to agree with is that there are a small number of security personnel with some sort of a gripe. It seems to me that the empowerment goes to their head and that they are going to show these pilots who the boss is. On a few occassions I have met these guys and girls and it is very sad. The chip is so embedded into their shoulder it is unremoveable. This is where you get an unresonable level of "checking" on a pilot versus a passenger.

I still cannot figure out why they are taking exploding yoghurt from pilots. Why would I spend years developing exploding yoghurt when I have two hands and a control column. You have to admit this is barking mad. May pilots should have their hands surgically removed. just leave a stump for engaging the autopilot!! :)

AUTOGLIDE

17th Sep 2006, 16:30

From reading these posts I can only conclude that the problem isn't the rules, the security staff carrying them out, but instead the arrogant god-complex of what I can only hope is a minority of Pilot's. It's been very revealing, and those coming out looking bad are not the security staff, but those Pilot's insulting them. A lot of these posts read like a spoil brat teenager throwing a tantrum because they go through security like an Engineer, ATC, Dispatcher, in fact like everybody else. Grow up.
Oh yes, for those of you who think you are so very clever, in my experience you have just as much to learn as everyone else, but probably won't. Humility is a fantastic and wise quality to have. This topic has some truly disgusting and nasty comments in it. :hmm: In fact it is mentally toxic.

wiggy

17th Sep 2006, 16:37

Charming..I guess the logic behind a lot of the comments on this thread escaped you:oh:

Chuck Ellsworth

17th Sep 2006, 17:01

Autoglide, for once in my life I wish I was working in the security area and got to check you out.

First I'd use the wand to see if I could find your brain.

x12

17th Sep 2006, 17:12

What on earth is going on that the DFT, DAFT... have to make pilots take their shoes off, How utterly stupid. Of course here in Great Britain :ugh: we now have so many jobsworths with crap degrees everyone does as they are told... ehhhh, otherwise we will all be ... ehhhh.... fined.

Autoglide, you just don't get it do you ? you have a job so that you and your mates can supply me with an aircraft that is safe... don't matter how hard you try, you can't protect me from myself.

Tan

17th Sep 2006, 22:19

Sir Thomas

17th Sep 2006, 22:47

get real autoglide:rolleyes: ( maybe you shouldnt accept things on auto all the time )

x12

18th Sep 2006, 05:59

Since crew have to take their shoes off and can't carry cosmetics may I suggest that all UK based pilots refuse to carry any passengers who try to take on board duty free purchased from the airport shop, brandy is flamable and how essential are a box of 200 fags ?

pleasurablejo

18th Sep 2006, 06:48

Morons that run this country are quite unbelivable.

On a different aiport / security stupidity note has anyone noticed the range of new signs threatening fines of £50 for such things as not wearing a yellow jacket airside ?

Now I think we not quite in a communist country yet and are still (only just) living in a democracy and as far as I am aware the only insitute that can endorse a fine is a court, civil or criminal.

They can take your I/D but they seem to have jumped on the bandwagon of trying to top up the christmas fund by trying to extract money with menace.
It would be like the local window company popping around to fine my for having dirty windows. OOps, that may be a law coming soon.

A2QFI

18th Sep 2006, 07:43

You may find this 'fine' for not wearing Hi-Viz jacket airside is not a fine issued by a court after due process of law but a civil penalty applied by your employer or BAA. The same thing applies in supermarket car parks if you over stay. It is a penalty imposed by whoever runs the parking not by a magistrate. It is still rubbish though!

Mentaleena

18th Sep 2006, 08:53

AUTOGLIDE

The fact you have a potentially deadly aircraft is neither here nor there, I have a locker full of sharp tools, so be it, rules apply to all.

With this attitude dude, you should become if not already, an airport security mandarin. There's no use you posting WORDS here without examining the subject you write about. Read the posts first, then reply. You can choose to ignore the vast majority of feelings here, but then what's the use, where are you going with this? Certainly against the wall. :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

nomorefun

18th Sep 2006, 13:00

I have read across this great tread and I guest everything has been said but all this security issue is the fact that pilots became terrorist after September 11. This is a public relation issue, governments need to show that there are doing something to assure security of the passengers by screening everybody travelling, and that includes the pilots.
The way they are using to secure a flight is very primitive, cheap and does not discriminate any ethnic group or religion so politicians can sleep at night.
They don't care if an airplane gets blown off in mid air; they have done their job.
The other day, I had my toothpaste taken by security, in full uniform going to my airplane, in front of all passengers. What is the message this image carries, we are not sure that this captain is a dangerous criminal or member of AlQaeda but at least, he wont blow himself up with his toothpaste. I thought of telling this security agent that I would come back in a few minutes with the cockpit axe to reclaim my toothpaste..
Worst, I was in Nantes France about a week ago and one security officer told me that he had to follow me during my walk around, I thought at first that this was a joke but no, this poor idiot was serious.
I guest that the next event involving a pilot will bring an armed officer in all flight sitting in the jump seat and pointing a gun at you to make sure that you wont turn into somebody else during the flight, I am sure that some genius deciders I have thought of that.
To conclude, what has been done as a group or community to regain some respect and dignity in our profession? What unions in America and Europe or else has done so fare? nothing or very little.
Event the security passes that we carry are no better that a boarding pass.
We could have a system that would identify airline pilots in every little details, but that would cost money, who wants to pay for that? The Airlines, certainly not, the government? Why, it works great like it is right now, the passengers?
I guest we will have to comply with all this useless security cr$p until retirement!
Great site by the way…:sad:

skydriller

18th Sep 2006, 16:47

While all around loose their common sense, one airline is cashing in on a potential goldmine ::E

http://newsbiscuit.com/article/budget-airline-to-allow-bombs-for-5-surcharge

Regards, SD..;)

JediDude

18th Sep 2006, 17:51

While all around loose their common sense, one airline is cashing in on a potential goldmine ::E
http://newsbiscuit.com/article/budget-airline-to-allow-bombs-for-5-surcharge
Regards, SD..;)

Brilliant! :D

ContIgnt

18th Sep 2006, 18:23

Wan't there to supposed to be a high level DFT meeting today to decide which of the ridiculous, draconian rules will be 'eased' ?

I here from the ground crews (fuellers, loaders ..etc..), that they have given an ultimatum to the authorities in BHX !

Apparently, they have until Thursday to sort out a way for hundreds of airside shift workers to bring food and drink through to their crewrooms/restrooms ..etc..

flyingbug

18th Sep 2006, 21:00

Humility is a fantastic and wise quality to have.

Autoglide,

a wise brain engaged before opening mouth is also a fantastic quality. Your post is ill-informed.

FB:ugh: :ugh:

757manipulator

18th Sep 2006, 21:10

Mentally toxic
From reading these posts I can only conclude that the problem isn't the rules, the security staff carrying them out, but instead the arrogant god-complex of what I can only hope is a minority of Pilot's. It's been very revealing, and those coming out looking bad are not the security staff, but those Pilot's insulting them. A lot of these posts read like a spoil brat teenager throwing a tantrum because they go through security like an Engineer, ATC, Dispatcher, in fact like everybody else. Grow up.
Oh yes, for those of you who think you are so very clever, in my experience you have just as much to learn as everyone else, but probably won't. Humility is a fantastic and wise quality to have. This topic has some truly disgusting and nasty comments in it. In fact it is mentally toxic.

An apt description of your own attitute autoglide; You more than most are in a position to offer a voice of reason and balance. And yet alas, you take yet another opportunity to have a pop at pilots...perhaps because they represent something you once aspired too? perhaps its because you dont like the way we dress? or maybe its just that you dont particularly like pilots as a professional body of employees...:hmm: In any case, your comments are typical of someone with an axe to grind, or worse..someone with such inflated opinions of your own ideas, you have singularly failed to grasp the basis, and tenants of this discussion.
Whatever the reason, and I suspect I know the reason....your comments are vindictive and spiteful, they fail spectacularly to contribute anything worthwhile to this thread:yuk:

ShotOne

18th Sep 2006, 21:49

There is a strong rumour the rules will be eased soon. Anyone know more?

Interestingly the ban on musical instruments looks set to be lifted. I can't see there was ever any logic behind that one -although it's depressing to think the Musician's Union apparently carries more clout than ours!

Desperate

18th Sep 2006, 22:34

Interestingly the ban on musical instruments looks set to be lifted. I can't see there was ever any logic behind that one -although it's depressing to think the Musician's Union apparently carries more clout than ours!
Quite simply, they were better organised and took their fight to the media effectively. That's where the battles are won - all the broadsheets carried their very legitimate concerns. They even got their point home during the Last Night of the Proms.

At the risk of quoting Monty Python: What has Balpa done for us?

A and C

19th Sep 2006, 06:37

I was had to fly from Manchester twice this week and the difference in the way I was treated by security was very marked.

The staff at the north gate security post could only be described as rude, arrogant and provocative with one of them barking orders at airline staff and clearly enjoying the power to order people about, the removal of items from a company issue first aid kit was no doubt the highlight of the day for one member of this gang.
It was quite easy to see that the name of the game was to prevoke a reaction from a member of airline staff, what fun it would be to get some one arrested was clearly the attitude.
Fortunatly dispite the aggressive and insulting treatment that the airline staff had to endure no one reacted, with the atmosphere at that security point just one spark would have set off a large amount of violence.

A day or two later as a passenger the treatment was very different security was strict but conducted in a civil and proper way.

I have raised a report about the conduct of the secuity staff at Manchester, I don't think that the management at Manchester airport will take any notice but it is on file and should something kick off reports like mine could be used as evidence of a cutlure of rude and provocative behavior by security staff that would be beond the endurance of a reasonable person day after day.

So please if you don't like the way security treat you raise some paperwork, there is nothing the management like less than having to answer for the bad treatment of there "customers"

mfaff

19th Sep 2006, 07:06

Brilliant thread..and one which provokes a lot of thought...

However I'd like to bring perhaps a different slant to it....and one which may not be welcome....

Jonny Jobsworth on security has a fairly limited remit...perhaps deliberately because of limited ability or because the rules are set up that way.

So along comes Captain Chaos and his merry men (or women), in full uniform and fully tooled up to fly. Now JJ has seen many CCs today...all of whom are accredited and hold ID which looks good...

Now I can go out and rent or purchase clothes that make me appear to be an airline pilot...and I can easily create ID which JJ would believe to be correct and legit...neither however would make me an airline pilot.

So here we have the heart of the matter. Pilots by and large are honest, law abiding and non suicidal people who love what they are doing. If they wanted to take a plane out, as has been expounded at length, they are more than able to do so without resort to explosives etc...

But are all people who look like pilots actually pilots?

So JJ and more to the point JJ's boss's boss's boss thinks that if pilots are excempt from the security rules then there is the potential for a breach of that security....So JJ is instructed to treat CC as just another person who may be a malfaisant, hell bent on destruction, carrying a lethal cocktail of mineral water and cell phone is his flight bag...

In reality the solution is very very simple (but costs money) ...have a security check point only for flight and cabin crew..with access to the airlines' crew roster to ensure the Captain Chaos is indeed going to fly Happy Airlines Flight 100 today..It would both speed up the process and remove the public's free show of seeing the crew being strip searched for lip stick....

Just a thought...

AdrianShaftsworthy

19th Sep 2006, 07:24

Mfaff,
The answer is even simpler. Forget all this PC c##p and introduce positive profiling as per El Al. Cheaper and quicker than all this nonsense we're having to put up with now!!!

pleasurablejo

19th Sep 2006, 07:27

Manchester security are the most rude out there.

They do the shoe thing :ugh: then sit on their arses on the two chairs that are there watching people do a balancing act to put there shoes on, oh, and don't try to hold the door open for your mate 3 feet behind ya....... Rules say nooooooooooo,
obviously incase a load of security checked airport workers with yoghurts try to 'rush' the metal hoop.

strange that since the passenger security has no doors !

brakedwell

19th Sep 2006, 07:29

[QUOTE=mfaff;2859972]
So along comes Captain Chaos and his merry men (or women), in full uniform and fully tooled up to fly. But are all people who look like pilots actually pilots?
.[/QUOTE

One slight flaw mfaff.
It would not be possible for the "bad guys" to assemble two pilots and up to a dozen cabin crew, all dressed in authentic uniforms, carrying company ID's and bags etc and present them to security at the correct time/date to operate a specific flight. Could be fun if both "crews" turned up at the same time though!

mfaff

19th Sep 2006, 08:02

Brakedwell,

Hmmm... I'm pretty certain you are wrong...a couple of flight crew and two or three flight attendants.. trying it on as a say a 146 crew...

Not too much problem there...

As for ID.. a simple robbery would give me all the originals I needed.. a good forgery set up would allow me to make all the fake IDs required. Again not a mountain to climb in voew of what is wanted.

I'm sure that prior to the 11th September, 'we' would have said it was not possible to organise a simultaneous four airliner hijack and suicide mission either, let alone to knock down the Twin Towers or yet attack the Pentagon.. or a co-ordinated multi bomb attack in London either....

We were wrong on both counts...

They might have beliefs and attitudes which we do not agree with, but there are as many idiots here as there and likewise there are as many intelligent, organised and disciplined leaders....

Adrain,

Quite... until you realise that you need to set, maintain and police this profile; update it with new permutations and information and who makes those calls....again you will target specifics which can easily be avoided....I'm pretty certain that the London bombers would have slipped thro the net.. and the Police with their profiling managed to kill an innocent Brazilian.

Profiling relies far too much on compentence... a commodity in short supply in many areas. Basic security, such as searches, acts as a deterent and is far less reliant on judgement and ability. Multiple layers are possible fairly cheaply, so a single mistake is less likely to prove disasterous...If you rely on the profiling, get it wrong once and the results are potentially terrible...in a multi layer 'dumb' system one persons' slip up is likely to be picked up by the next layer.. Ok its not fool proof but it is more 'reliable'.

El Al makes it work not by being clever, but by being competent...and using very dedicated staff who are working less for an airline or airport operator and more for the nation...It stems from a different source, a different motivation. And they the security staff are very mobile, moving from nation to nation regularly to ensure that nobody gets 'stale' or worse compromised. All possible with a 'state' institution, less possible with commercial companies.

Certainly profiling would be a valid additional layer...but not a replacement.

But the issue here is not security at all, its the position of crew with respect to what ever security is in place. Therefore I maintain that it is not what is doen, but how it is done. The 'spectacle' of crrew being treated as 'SLF' is not accpetable...and separation would allow different process to be carried out without it being a publicity issue.

Desperate

19th Sep 2006, 09:30

mfaff

You clearly have not the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Brakedwell gave you just one example of where reality and your fantasy world differs, yet you persist with your ignorant rubbish.

Suffice to say you have no idea of a crew's progression from initial report to actual pushback - and I'm not about to enlighten you.

You have no knowledge of the details contained on a modern i/d card, or its properties. You fail to grasp even the most fundamental concepts of what a real crew does in preparation for departure. In case it hadn't occured to you, we don't just turn up, wander up the steps and 'switch on' as you might with your Mondeo.

At every stage in the process, the bogus crew would be spotted. Again, I'm not about to enlighten you. And if the aircraft really is due to depart, where do you think the real crew would be?

I'm waiting for your "they're all being held hostage" reply...

The trouble with ignorant posts such as yours is that (given time and monotonous repetition) they are in danger of gaining critical mass to the point where other naive people actually believe the scenario has merit. It hasn't.

I wouldn't dream of trying to tell you how to do your job in central London or pontificate the finer points of architectural design - the world which you inhabit.

I think you've been watching too many movies - I suggest a couple of early nights and a reality check.

ShotOne

19th Sep 2006, 09:44

El Al certainly have a high threat to deal with -but before we go too far in saying we should copy them, bear in mind some factors make their job easier. For a start a large proportion of their pax are Israeli citizens. This means they know a great deal about them. On top of that many of their flights are to or from Israel -in which case the pax is either visiting relatives or has some good reason for going. The remainder can then be grilled as descibed above. A colleague of mine had that pleasure and while the process was thorough, it certainly wasn't polite and indeed was highly intrusive. For instance he could see the relevance of being asked where he purchased his suitcase but not whether he had a sexual relationship with a female member of his dive party.

His interrogation took about 50 minutes, and definitely made him choose a different holiday destination in future. Even with tens of thousands of extra trained staff, we still wouldn't have the resources for such a process.

stator vane

19th Sep 2006, 13:48

i suspect that they recognize a chance to make some money!!!

a not so free market so to speak.

mfaff

19th Sep 2006, 14:46

Desperate,

Thanks for a very insightful post… really helpful.

However I’d say you are merely looking at the problem from a different perspective.

The way I have read this thread, and perhaps I am wrong…the main issue is the way that aircraft crew have to deal with inconsistent, seemingly irrelevant and intrusive security as they go legitimately from landside to airside.

The use of false uniforms and fake ID was illustrative of a simple way of side- stepping the security barrier if the presence of a uniform and an ID were sufficient to gain a different treatment at this point.

Both Brakedwell and you then took a flying leap into conjecture that the fakes would then proceed to take over an aircraft. This is only one of a number of options open to them. Others exist and may satisfy their aims just as well.

So if we look at the relevance of the entire process a legit crew goes thro from first arrival to taking an aircraft in the light of getting thro security we can see if it is relevant.

Jonny Jobsworth deals with a crew as they appear at his or her security station. He has not observed them arrive so cannot vouch from whence they have come, he possibly does not care. Nor, I wager, does he or she really care where they are going. They are part of the crowd of people who have arrived from the uncontrolled landside section of the airport…no more; no less. They will be treated in the same fashion as everyone else. So whether they have just entered the terminal from a taxi or been given the once over by a company ID check is totally irrelevant. JJ is oblivious of this….Where the crew then goes does not matter to JJ. If the crew vanishes into thin air it is not his duty know or control.

The notion that aircrew should have a separate security area, to which only air and ground crew have access means more specific checks can be made.. more about making sure the people are who they say they are and are supposed to be there, rather than checking to see if the lens fluid is explosive, the sandwich poisoned or the toothpick is dangerous. This may be achieved either by ensuring the crews arrive at this security checkpoint as the result of either passing thro company spaces, access to which is gained only by company ID checks, or by another access controlled landside section, where IDs can be checked against user company databases.

So whilst I would agree that the chances of using fake crew; with fake IDs to gain control of an aircraft is remote (although it exists) this was not the issue. The issue is the use of fake ID and uniforms to get thro security.

Aside from this you may wish to devote your considerable knowledge and intelligence to another issue…..even if only for a few seconds.

Airports are buildings. They are designed by people. Those people need to learn, understand and know how these buildings work, how these ‘people machines’ function. In order to do so the designers need to be able to define the routes people take thro the airport as they use it as passengers, as landside staff, as airside users, as users of both sides, as cleaners, as security staff, as maintenance men and as even as aircrew. Those designers need to know what the sequence of events and spaces is that these users need at every stage of their use of the building. They need to know what those spaces are, what they are used for, how big, how many doors and windows they need. They need to know who can go thro that door, this door, where those users are going and what they are doing.

In order to gain this knowledge and understanding those designers spend a lot of time experiencing these for themselves, in existing airports and in working with the people who use them, who run them. And here’s the really interesting bit…a large percentage of those designers are architects.

So, if I can ask you to make another of your mental leaps…there is a possibility that as an architect, my knowledge of how and airport works is extensive and detailed; that my knowledge of how the people, both SLF and professional users go thro an airport may be equally extensive and detailed. And shock horror I may even know how the security of an airport works.

To add to the unimaginable I may know in detail the route a crew needs to take from the moment they arrive at the airport until they close the door of the plane they are rostered to…I may know what the sequence of spaces they need to use is before venturing across the security barrier and beyond to their rostered craft. I may, perish the thought, know exactly which doors; both airside and landside; are on an access control system… and on which systems… I might even know what that system is... and what makes it work... let alone what the ID is that activates it…and oh the humanity, where to get the machine that makes the ID card that activates the door that allows access to the inner sanctums of the airport. I might even have discussed this with an airport operator and an airline rep…or better yet taken specialist advice on the matter so that my proposed designs work or even have as a member of the architectural team a designer who has worked these systems first hand as a security agent for a major airline renowned of its security profile.

I’m glad that you pointed out that I do not have the faintest idea of what I am talking about. It reassures me that you experience this first hand every time you use certain airports both here and overseas. It makes me realise that if all it takes is ignorance, then truly, it is the way forward.

I tell you what Desperate…lets make a deal; I’ll come and tell you how to fly an airplane a large complex multi-engined passenger jet say... based only on several thousand flights as a passenger and a handful of hours in a light plane and fast jets (I'm assuming here you are a pilot).. And then you can come and tell me how to design an airport because you use one often as a pilot…Sound good to you?

J.O.

19th Sep 2006, 15:38

mfaff:

Granted, you are an expert in designing buildings, including airport terminals. I believe you would agree that a building is a system, comprised of a series of elements that work together to perform a particular function or functions. Would it not be safe to say that when a building is being designed, that there are many stakeholders, including plumbers, electricians, carpenters, and the end users of said building, who are consulted along with architects to ensure that the building (as in a system) is designed to be reasonable user friendly and effective?

The pilots are not just criticising buildings, they are criticising the security system. The buildings are but a part of that system. The pilots are stakeholders in that system, and they have noted some serious design flaws, not only in that said stakeholders are being treated as criminal suspects on their way to work, but in that the system is not adequately performing its' desired function. There are water stains on the walls and ceilings, and yet no one weems willing to consult a plumber or a roofer before trying to fix them.

The security system in fact should be there to serve the pilots and all other stakeholders in the aviation system, in the same way that the police are there to serve the citizens of a community to ensure it is properly protected from crime. If in performing that function, the police treated the stakeholders (i.e. innocent citizens) as criminal suspects every time they entered their home or place of business, I believe there would be some significant hell-raising.

TheOddOne

19th Sep 2006, 15:38

Nice one, mfaff, nice one.

TheOddOne

mfaff

19th Sep 2006, 17:29

J.O.

I would be foolish to disagree totally with you. However whilst your comments address the overall issue as part of, as you say, a system it is not correct to say that architects are consulted along with other stakeholders. As the architect I am not a stakeholder.

The context of my post was that it is the architect who does the vast majority of that consulting with the stakeholders; in the main the operators and users, prior to beginning the design. The architect is often the one who spends the time talking to the pilots and the ground staff, etc as to what it is they need. From this research emerges a design which attempts to merge all of the requirements and desires into a single cohesive functioning whole. The architect is the one who proposes a system that is reasonably user friendly and effective (hopefully)…the stakeholders are the ones who then have the power to agree or disagree with the proposal. This includes the physical manifestation of the operational requirements of the security system.

In this thread, the issue as I read it, is that pilots are:
a) Upset that the system does not recognize their needs and role.
b) Incensed that the manifestation of that lack of recognition is to be subject to the same strictures as the travelling public.

If we look at what the security system is there to achieve: - to ensure that the fare- paying passengers and the crews who serve them are as safe as possible from deliberate harm, and to protect those on the ground and in buildings from being harmed, is the current security system working?

The treatment of the aircraft crew in the manner that has been described here and that I have seen recently serves no security purpose at all. It does not remove the risk that the real crew can, if they so chose, fly a fully laden aircraft into a building. Plus they do not need devices to do so, their skill is all that is required.

What has also been evident on this thread is the assumption, by air crew here, that the sight of the uniform and ID, as presented at the common security checkpoint; is sufficient to grant the crews immunity from these checks, in full view of the fare paying passengers who are being searched.

What I was trying, and seemingly failing to do, was to show that this assumption, namely that the use of uniforms and ID, was insufficiently robust to adequately provide the security required. It is a simplistic view of the issue and one which is all too easily defeated, an easy example of which was given.

I agree that crews should be treated differently. But that differentiation must be done on a number of levels; physically, by having separate, dedicated access points, and by a different level of security… checking the people are actually who they should be, where they should be and when they should be….Then the issue of ‘banned’ items becomes irrelevant.
This separation already exists to a certain degree for airside ground crew who use apron/ ramp level security checkpoints but is not available to aircrew.

Now, if this separation is what is needed to perform the task of providing security then it is not rocket science. It provides the security required to achieve the stated aims and the ability to ensure that crews are able to go to work without being treated like suspects. The belief however that uniforms and ID should be sufficient is however naive. That can only work as part of a wider solution.

The comment was ’not having the faintest idea’ is also interesting. In order to create the functional spaces for any system the designer needs to be understand it, to know its goals and priorities need to be known and defined.
In respect to security this manifests itself in two directions….that of the elements required…such as physical barriers to passage and limiting the number of weak points in any perimeter…and secondly the operation of those barriers; be they people at checkpoints, card access systems and so forth. The final level of information is that of actually creating the system... so I know how to design a physical barrier such as a 10 foot razor wire fence and how to create an access control system... including how the IDs are made to be compatible with that system, because I need to know where to put the kit that allows it to be used.

An analogy is for the pilot of an aircraft to know the aircrafts’ systems in detail, not only what they do, but how they do it and the means required to achieve it…unless that knowledge is there then the overall package cannot be used fully.

As the designer I do know exactly where a crew needs to go and why in the progression to their aircraft. I also need to explore and identify the weak points of that route and how to help maintain the integrity of the system so that it retains its stated performance.

So when somebody says ‘if only XYZ were being done it would all be better’ and it’s clear that this is incorrect then, as Desperate says, ignorant posts, if repeated often enough, gain a critical mass to the point where other naïve people actually believe them. In this case it is naïve air crew who may believe that a uniform and ID are sufficient, when presented, to be taken as absolute guarantees that they are the good guys…I wonder who needs to stop watching films and take a reality check?

Pilot Pete

19th Sep 2006, 17:45

As a semi retired senior manager of a very large US company working within security, I can vouch for the fact that most of our security people (like aircrew) are neither educationally nor intellectually challenged. Interesting comment, but equally interesting is the BAA application form for security personnel at their UK airports. [URL="http://www.heathrowairport.com[/URL] Look under 'Careers' and 'Search Our Jobs', putting 'Security' into the search field. Under the heading:

Qualifications and Experience you will find the following:

Qualifications:
None. Full training in accordance with DfT and BAA guidelines will be given.

So the fact is that to become a security guard at a BAA airport you don't require any qualifications from our (or any other nation's) education system.

I am making no judgement here, just offering some FACTS.

The reason why aircrew should be subject to security is to ensure they are who they are claiming to be going airside. It is all about risk assessment. If we are deemed an acceptable risk to be employable flying aeroplanes then we should be deemed acceptable enough to carry a Lipsyl or some toothpaste. And don't start about the carrying of an illegal substance airside whilst our family is being held hostage, because your family will be dead if you do or if you don't so why would I NOT contact the authorities?

Problem is that many airport security personnel DO NOT check my ID correctly, therefore they have no idea who I am. At one staff checkpoint that I use regularly there is a 'grill' in the glass to allow your voice to be heard. It is right in between the eyeline of the person being checked and the security person. I have handed my ID, had it 'checked' and handed back on numerous occassions without them being able to see my face. They have made no attempt to move or get me to move to see me.:rolleyes:

I go to many airports that are not my base and it appears that the security staff have little if any idea what my pass represents. I have had them try to take my pass out of the holder and try to swipe it through their scanner, when it clearly is not an ID from their airport/ group and will therefore not swipe. They then turn to me as though I have a problem and ask why it won't swipe!

It has often been clear to me that they have not checked my ID properly. At one airport recently I could see the person did not recognise the pass. They looked at it in a blank sort of way and said nervously 'that's fine'. I then covered it up and asked what aiport it came from. The person was dumbfounded and obviously didn't have a clue.:rolleyes:

This is where the threat lies of someone getting airside with an illegal substance and the DfT could do a lot to make the system better by having UK IDs that all aiports in the UK can recognise/ swipe, biometric data that will help to verify who the holder is and training EFFECTIVE security personnel, and possibly reviewing their recruitment process.

I accept that foreign crews may have to subjected to greater scrutiny as they will not be part of that system, and equally accept that when abroad I will be subjected to their local regulations and checks.

This and other 'weaknesses' are where the RISK needs to be reduced, not pilots carrying toothpaste.:rolleyes: The fire-axe has been mentioned a number of times and rightly so, but it is simpler than that; I just wait for my colleague to go to take a leak and then I have uninterrupted control, no toothpaste, gel, lotion, potion, liquid, timer, detonator, mobile phone or Lipsyl required.:rolleyes: We live with RISK and it is down to the powers that be to reduce that risk to an acceptable level. At the moment they have gone over the top and it is NOT reducing the risk effectively in all areas, only making people's jobs harder and more frustrating, which, as has been pointed out is a safety risk increase in itself.:rolleyes:

PP

AUTOGLIDE

19th Sep 2006, 18:26

Mentally toxic
An apt description of your own attitute autoglide; You more than most are in a position to offer a voice of reason and balance. And yet alas, you take yet another opportunity to have a pop at pilots...perhaps because they represent something you once aspired too? perhaps its because you dont like the way we dress? or maybe its just that you dont particularly like pilots as a professional body of employees...:hmm: In any case, your comments are typical of someone with an axe to grind, or worse..someone with such inflated opinions of your own ideas, you have singularly failed to grasp the basis, and tenants of this discussion.
Whatever the reason, and I suspect I know the reason....your comments are vindictive and spiteful, they fail spectacularly to contribute anything worthwhile to this thread:yuk:

I don't care any more or less about Pilots than anybody else, never aspired to fly a 'plane, though I would aspire to something interesting, intellectually challenging and technical such as system design. Certainly never though about the way you dress, so can only wonder about that one, do you have a uniform 'thing'? The thing is that I don't see many posts from other airport worker groups who have taken it upon themselves to insult the intelligence of the security people doing their job. You have no right to do so. If you want to be treated with respect (as a group) then show some towards others. I've spent years dealing with non-existent technical faults caused by Pilot's not knowing how to operate systems properly, should I go on a public forum and say you're all stupid? For those posters who believe that security staff are being aggresive or rude, perhaps it's simply a reflection of your own, or the attitude of weeks of rude crew who've passed before you. As is often said, the attitude of others is often a reflection of your own. If you have a problem with the current madness take it up with the Department For Transport, don't insult people doing their (thankless) job. In other words, act like the professional you yourself want to be treated as.

flyingbug

19th Sep 2006, 21:59

Autoglide, since you state you do not care about pilots, nor have a desire to fly, why are you in a pilot's forum? Clear off to a website dedicated to your career.

fireflybob

19th Sep 2006, 23:31

I am somewhat surprised that nobody has seemed to directly mention the word "stress" and the potential effects that this has on the ability of flight deck crew to perform their duties safely and efficiently.

Nobody is suggesting that flight crew should not be subject to some form of security screening but if they arrive at the aircraft feeling that they have been "unfairly treated" then, I would suggest, this must have an adverse effect on flight safety even for the most "laid back" individual. Pilots are in the front line of aviation safety and, in extremis, the feeling that they are not being correctly dealt with could lead to an aircraft accident.

I say this against a background of pilots having a longer and more arduous commute to and from work, often working right up to the legal limits and also at a time where other terms and conditions have been eroded. Not to mention the information in the "datasphere" feeding their psyches the idea that they may themselves have to deal directly with terrorism.

RatherBeFlying

20th Sep 2006, 01:42

At my last airline employer in the '80s, crew would report to dispatch and be taken airside in a crew bus or maybe even walk to the hanger and taxi over to the gate. Airside passes would have to be worn.
It would take quite some doing to put aboard an imposter crew on a scheduled flight and I'm not about to make helpful suggestions on how this could be accomplished. But assuming the imposter crew got control of a scheduled flight, they would not need any weapons or explosive devices to do serious damage.
The problem for security posed by crews of several different operators, especially foreign, arriving landside is that they really have little means to know for sure that said person in a uniform is a genuine crew member or somebody on a secret mission to accumulate a critical mass of explosive toothpaste:}
Better would be a crew reporting office equipped to properly identify operating crew and send them on their way once properly identified.
Flight crew especially needs to be focussing on the coming flight and not being gotten into a stew over the umpteenth tedious discussion over the hazardous nature of tookits, toothpaste etc:ugh:
Perhaps the Comair investigation needs to check on how the crew fared going through security.
In fact, aviation accident investigation methodology does address human factors and should add possible rankling encounters with security as a factor to be included in the investigation.