Airport Security (Merged) - Effects on Crew/Staff

[Bomber Harris]

wow, autoglide, you just don't let it drop. Lots have people have pointed out that you are missing the point. You then come back and prove it once more.

Lots and lots of pilots are saying that some security staff are rude. You are saying that either they are not rude or its the pilots fault. What reaction do you expect from the pilot community to being called liars or even worse...upsetting poor security staff with our bad man management skills. You really should stop posting and buggger off to some website about a subject you know something about. A website on throwing toys may be appropriate.

mfaff, i think you are absolutly right about "identifying the person" philosophy. The old addage that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" seems apt here. Stop the terrorist, not the toothpaste!!

[choclit runway]

Autoglide, you're so wrong my friend. Worked at a variety of airports and invariably have 50% of my shifts ruined when I arrive at work in a perfectly good mood to be met with an abrupt, rude, insolent security guard whos only interest is to make my transit to the tower hard work. Be it completely de-robing because he cant 'pat' me down in my motorcycle leathers or preventing me taking my Costa coffee in because it may be a dangerous liquid and he/she cant put it through the x'ray machine, to removing my belt when he/she knows full well that is what is making the alarm on the metal detector go off just serves to irritate me (not the process which is required but the manner in which it is carried out).

What is worse the same employees see me 6 days in every 10 and their moods or attitudes never improve. 50% is my rough estimate but it may be more.

Thanks to all security who carry their duties in a profesional manner and to the rest, if you dont like the people or the job, bugger off and stop ruining my day!!!

To all the pilots/cabin crew etc etc who are fed up with the simple task of arriving at work... I sympathise!!!

ATCO fed up of working airside.

[PENKO]

Here we are, taking off shoes and jackets and you try to go through security with protective leather motorcycle clothing??? Sounds like you make life a bit difficult for yourself, and the agent.

I am sure that in another discussion you would argue that the whole airport security thing is futile because half of the agents let you through with said protective leather motorcycle clothing...

[PENKO]

Maybe not, although I'll think that you'll find the ATPL exams to be a rather tough filter! In the very recent past, some UK companies have specified a degree for those wishing to apply for a sponsored cadetship or similar.



Yeah, you need a good memory for those. Memorize a 1000 questions and you're ok. But I am not here to challenge a pilot's or anyone else's intellect, I am sure you can conclude that from my previous post.

[Desperate]

mfaff
Your earlier posting floated the fanciful notion of an entirely bogus crew – flight deck and cabin crew - somehow appearing in the correct security channel at the correct time with the intention (by extension) of boarding the aircraft.
Quote:
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 view of what is wanted.(Unquote)

Realizing that perhaps you’d previously strayed a bit too far, you altered your second scenario to simply getting this entire crew airside to ‘achieve their aims.’ Goalposts are moving but it matters not.

As I said originally, it’s not just a case of getting past security, or up the steps and turning the key as you would a Mondeo. Or in your case a Porsche; the 911 irony duly noted.

You then gave us a lengthy treatise on airport design, ‘functional spaces’, staff routes and access requirements. We progressed from door sizes to ID machines, with increasing heartbeat. Then your carefully worded crescendo suggested to the world that you, Michel, were the airport security expert bar none.

It left me wondering which UK airport terminals you, personally, had any involvement with. Granted you have extensive knowledge in the ‘building trade’ (OK, you’re an architect) and have worked for some decent firms. So far, my search has taken me to the American Air Museum in Duxford but now I’m stuck. Don’t misunderstand me, it’s a fine building with plenty of ‘functional space’ and you’ve every right to be proud of your involvement. I’m sure NF feels the same way. I’d be mildly interested to hear more of your extensive personal aviation security experience, though.

But where is this taking us? As other pilots have said, it’s not the building design we’re criticizing. Indeed, I have a dedicated crew-search point at my home base and would like to see these nationwide - maybe Hamiltons could tender. But that’s not the point. It almost doesn’t matter if my bags are checked or not because, as we know, those doing the checking are sometimes not as alert as they could be. Ignore for the time being that most UK ID cards are time-sensitive, zone sensitive and pin enabled. None of this is sensitive information, by the way.

Here’s the point: once airside, there’s precious little a crew of six can do that isn’t being monitored. Not just by CCTV, but the greatest asset we have – the human intuition of others. First it will be the crew bus driver, asking certain details. And again, you can ignore the presence of other staff. I will omit two sensitive matters that will also ‘get you’.

You are going to face the same human-interface problem with the dispatcher, the engineer, the refueller, the cleaners, the caterer, the push-back crew and probably air traffic. The genuine crew might also be just a little miffed that you’re taking their flight (but don’t count on that!). If you wonder why the caterers, cleaners or any of the others would notice it’s because their lives and ours are based largely on daily repetition. Even the right phrase, at the wrong time, stands out. That’s the great thing about human instinct – we know when something’s not right and have lateral-thinking ability that (your?) card readers don't. Even money on whether the dispatcher or the engineer would make the first call to Ops. Or the original crew. Either way it really is a non-starter.

So what if they have ‘other intentions’? It’s my considered belief that they’d be spotted once airside, especially if they didn’t go to an aircraft. BAA staff are especially hot on certain matters and six crew wandering aimlessly about would ‘show-out’ straight away. ATC, ground staff, security, Mr Plod, tug drivers, baggage handlers, caterers. All have a part to play, and thank God they do.

There are a number of other airside ‘gotchas’ in place which fortunately don’t involve the airport security searchers, which I won’t divulge on an open forum.
You seem on balance to make some reasoned arguments and we probably have similar interests. Aircrew are not suggesting that they should be exempt from all restrictions, as any reasoned observer of these 1000+ posts would gather. It’s just the lack of logic, application and consistency that gets us. Above all else, it’s the belief by those who have nothing to do with aviation that they really do know better because they've watched an episode of 'Airport'.

In fact, Choclit Runway’s post above really does sum it up. Believe me, ATCOs have far greater work-related stress than pilots (usually) and they're one other group who should not go to work wound up.

[EGKK931]

From the prospective of a PAX:

I flew on THE 10th August 2006, the day this security was at its highest and the UK was on its highest terrorism level.

I was delayed 3 hours, this is not the point of my post however.
I believe that most of the posters on this thread are vastly over reacting and exaggerating. I went through security at one of the BAA London airports on the 10th August and found no queue for security and friendly staff and was over within about 1 minute in fact.

If it was like this on 10th August and security has been DEcreased slightly since then, I cannot see why you all get so wound up on the issue.

But I do sympathise with the pilots, you should not have to put up with the security when you have the means to cause so much more than some liquid through security checks.
Also, ATC staff should not have to be subject to this intense security especially given the responsibility you actually have and again, if you wanted to cuase carnage it would take just a few words to do so and nothing would stop this.......

Very good thread, interesting reading! :ok:

[Pilot Pete]

From the prospective of a PAX:
I believe that most of the posters on this thread are vastly over reacting and exaggerating. You are indeed entitled to your opinion, and I am glad you had a good experience on 10th August. BUT, we go through this daily and it hampers our operation, doesn't achieve what the general public would believe it does and decreases flight safety. That's not exaggeration, that's just my opinion and the opinion widely held by the professionals in this industry.
Also, ATC staff should not have to be subject to this intense security especially given the responsibility you actually have and again, if you wanted to cuase carnage it would take just a few words to do so and nothing would stop this...... Unfortunately, I think you watched Spooks the other night and believe that it is all factual..... there are safeguards against controller error, just like there are systems which can alert pilots to our errors and break the error chain. TCAS is one such system. However, I still agree with your logic, if not your reasoning.:ok:

PP

Edited to add that Mike Jenvey correctly pointed out the academic qualification required for employment as a pilot. Maybe it is a memory test, many would argue that it is, but it certainly sorts much of the chaff out at an early stage. Once you manage to get a job you then have to do plenty more bookwork and get tested extensively before you go anywhere near an aircraft with pax on. And then you do your line training, which needs more bookwork and study, including yet again, more memorising of info (perhaps the ATPLs weren't that misconceived after all!) and IF you reach the required standard you will be signed off. I think your academic abilities have been well assessed by the time you fly the line. I don't see any mention of such an indepth criteria on the BAA application for their security staff. Again, not point scoring, merely stating fact in response to the original poster which stated how academically astute all the security staff were that he had experience with.....

[mfaff]

Desperate,

You raised some very good points...and you are right we have a shared aim.

The real issue is that nowhere did I make the link between getting thro security as a 'fake' crew and actually taking an aircraft. Others, including yourself made it and implied that is what I meant. So far from back tracking and changing the goals posts, my scenario was to point out that assumptions made by others were some how inherent to my original post. Not true, whilst I said they were 'fully tooled up to fly' did you ever stop to consider that it is part of their 'crew' disguise...like the uniforms, like the IDs....

Brakedwell made a point that gathering a 'couple of pilots and a dozen cabin crew' was impossible...with the assumption that all they intended to do was to 'take an aircraft'. I retorted that fewer in number could be gathered to pass as 'say a 146 crew'...would Jonny Jobsworth on security be able to challenge that, should he have reason to be suspicious of this crew? Possibly not.

I also attempted to remind people that 'its not possible' has been proven all too possible too often to make that notion an extremely dangerous one, again the example quoted serves that purpose.

You are right that there are too many gotchas, both air and land side that would mean it's highly unlikely that a fake crew could actually take an aircraft.

The issue of this thread is however getting thro the security barrier. And it's the tone adopted by many here that they, as aircrew, ATCOs and others, should not be subject to the treatment they receive at the 'common security' points to airside. They imply..and others have said it more directly, that their 'status' as evidenced by an ID card and a uniform should enable them to be treated differently than the others. I have pointed out that it is far too easy to defeat that.

IDs, even those that are time sensitive, pin-defined are all able to be defeated...the systems that create them are avaliable and can therefore be abused. Gaining that information, and from there being able to find counters to it is not particularly difficult. Again I illustrated the fact that the knowledge is there...being used by many people, it is not a highly confidential matter.

If those same people want to be treated differently, hopefully with greater consideration to their role and with greater consistency, then the best way may be to make sure they are checked in a different fashion, preferably in a different place, by differently trained security staff. Again the aim here is to add a 'gotcha' and close a potential weakness.

In your scenario you have made another assumption...that the fake crew, once thro security, will remain as a group, with the same appearance. Simply removing a jacket, losing a tie, rolling up one's sleeves, a pair of glasses, letting your hair down in the case of a lady and the 'impression' one leaves is completely different...and the crew 'vanishes' in plain sight. And none of this is unreasonable...its not a fantasist world, influenced by too many films...

Much of your 'instinct' then is unusable. Your detailed list of crew bus drivers, dispatchers and so forth is interesting but then potentially irrelevant.

As for the 'increasing crescendo'..interesting coming from somebody whose opening line was a possibly strident 'you don't have the faintest idea'...followed by an accusation of posting 'ignorant nonsense'....and concluded by 'get a some sleep and a reality check'. The overall tone was one of dismissive contempt for somebody who, in your opinion, could not possibly know anything about the subject at all. I think my response illustrated that there is a possibility that by doing what I do I may not be as uneducated as you assume, I may have watched more than one episode of 'Airport' or seen too many James Bond films, equally I might not.

I am however concerned and perhaps somewhat flattered that you have bothered to do so much research about me. What is worrying, at least to me, is that the jumps to conclusions you make following a brief post have not been followed up by a logical joining of the dots following the possibly more in depth research you have done; the answers are all there in plain sight...waiting to be seen.

I think there is a point there.. one I made earlier in my offer to you...if all it takes to fly a plane is a bit of 'user' experience then there is no reason why I should not do your job, or for you to do mine...however as we both know it takes more than that..it takes a lot of challenging training and a certain mental approach to the task in hand. So whilst you have the skills, knowledge and the mindset to be a pilot (I'm assuming you are ); I have the equivalent level of skill, knowledge and the mindset to do what I do... and to dismiss either one as being ignorant, nonsensical, unreal or anything else is merely a demonstration of one's own lack of knowledge of what the other really does...an unedifing position to be in I hope you will agree.

Happy flying.

[brakedwell]

Brakedwell made a point that gathering a 'couple of pilots and a dozen cabin crew' was impossible...with the assumption that all they intended to do was to 'take an aircraft'. I retorted that fewer in number could be gathered to pass as 'say a 146 crew'...would Jonny Jobsworth on security be able to challenge that, should he have reason to be suspicious of this crew? Possibly not.


mfaff - I made no such assumption as to what the bogus crew would do once airside. I was tempted to suggest they could hijack a passing catering truck or honey wagon, both are potentially lethal, but I didn't due to the seriousnes of this thread. Perhaps you can suggest what they could do to terrorise the flying public. After the thorough frisking at crew security and denuded of pens, toothpaste, lipsticks, sandwiches, water and make-up they would be a toothless group. It would be far easier for a suicide bomber in a minibus packed with explosives to cause carnage if he detonated his bomb outside the front of a busy terminal. And what about the horrifying thought of SAM's? Your 146 argument doess not convince me.

[I-FORD]

Very interesting thread, expecially when the posters are bending over backwards trying to demonstrate that pilots are no different from any other so must endure the same security crap.
The family that disappears and the ensuing blackmail letter is the best of all!
Most of the security measures are aimed at people that want to take control of an aircraft to use it as a weapon, like they did on 9-11.
That's why security confiscates nail files, screwdrivers etc...
As many pilots tried to explain they don't need any tool to achieve that goal, that's why they are different, but stone headed security worshippers won't understand, not even shooting that concept in their heads with a gun.
Another thing that they don't grasp is that most of the world doesn't apply the same security measures as you have in UK.
In the last month I overflew UK in almost all of my USA-bound flights, with my toothpaste with me.
Same applies to almost all of the european carriers, so you have half of the flights over your airspace (the ones that originated in UK) VERY safe (no toothpaste) while the other half where really unsafe (toothpaste still in the hands of crews and passengers).
I think it's due time you and your government came back to reality.

[mfaff]

As I have read this post the prime complaint is that air crew, ATCOs and others who daily work on the 'other side' are being subject to the same measures as the travelling public.

It has been pointed out numerous times none of these people need toothpaste, shaving foam or whatever else is on the list today to cause havoc...their jobs and the abilities inherent in them are sufficient.

Rightly to be treated in the same fashion as the anonymous travelling public and vulnerable to unpredictable attitudes from security staff is not helping anyone. Nor does it enhance security as it does not remove any of the potential risk.

But associated with that fact is this assumption that just because of who they are... manifested by say a uniform and ID, they should be granted a different standard of treatment from the security staff who are there to deal primarily with the travelling masses. This assumption is incorrect. The fake crew scenario was an easy way of making it clear. If that is all it took to ensure that the crew were not subject to the same restrictions as others then it would be abused, especially if you are expecting the security staff to make this judgement call...

I mentionned that if crews and others wish to be treated differently..which is not an unreasonable desire, then this treatment should perhaps take place in a different location, with different criteria and with security staff trained in a different fashion. The focus here would be less on what they have and far more on who they are...and are they supposed to be there in the first place. What they are then taking on board would not be such an issue. This solves both the attitude problem.. on both sides. and the irritation of having kit needlessly confiscated.

I can understand that on a forum such as this being able to vent one's fustrations is desirable. However if discussion is the aim of the game then discuss. If its reinforcement of your own viewpoints that you seek then perhaps another section could be opened for that..

[blueplume]

If we could bring down airplanes with toothpaste that would be fantastic. Think of the financial savings: no need for Instrument Rating, written exams, coastal refraction etc..
Reminds me of the Infinite Improbability Drive in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy which was powered by tea, if memory serves.
Just issue all PPLs with a tube of toothpaste (with three stripes of course, can't be giving them too much power straight away) and you have instant IR CPL. Amazing. Why has the CAA not thought of this! I think we should be told.

[cwatters]

..to removing my belt when he/she knows full well that is what is making the alarm on the metal detector go off..

or perhaps it's the box cutter behind your buckle?

[Pilot Pete]

The fake crew scenario was an easy way of making it clear. If that is all it took to ensure that the crew were not subject to the same restrictions as others then it would be abused, especially if you are expecting the security staff to make this judgement call... OK, so a uniform and an ID are not enough to prove that crew are crew? So what the hell are ALL airport security checkpoints doing then, letting us through based on an ID alone? If the system proves nothing and can be so easily copied then the whole issue of security at airports is completely flawed according to your logic.:rolleyes:

PP

[Mentaleena]

Ok then.

For all you Security Obsessed people, a simple question?

What will happen, when the dft decide that we could revert to the old days and bring in the lipstick, the explosive curry and contact lense cleaner fluid?

What will have happened to all your arguments for all these shoes/belts and confiscations idiocies then, because the REAL situation will not have changed, just the dft or whomever's perception!
Why is it going to be ok then to bring all this through for a pilot?

Please get a grip and understand, nothing is safe for as long as there are airports, pilots or the existence of life on earth!

[haughtney1]

Pete kind of stole my thunder in response to MFAFF......

Seriously though, mfaff, according to your logic..security has no point. ID cards are no good (they can be copied) uniforms have no merit (spend a bit of money on Ebay and hey presto!)...and of course once they (the mythical and thoroughly well resourced terrorist) are airside, its a quick change into a new disguise which allows them to carry out their dastardly deeds with a minimum of fuss:hmm:

Back to the real world...and we are talking about pilots here, not cleaners, caterers, bus drivers, fuellers, engineers, station managers, or for that matter architects.

1. Once locked behind our bullet-proof door, there is no need for exploding shoes, underpants, toothpaste, contact lense fluid.

2. Removing said items adds NOTHING to security and accomplishes nothing more than to "piss off" a large majority of otherwise professional, competant, and considerate aviators.

3. Every system, design, concept, or process that has been implimented to improve security is vunerable to the ingenuity of man.

I say to all you hollywood fantasists...go out more, and get a life. To the armchair expert on here....go back to eating your chicken wrap for lunch, instead of posting uninformed rubbish on here:yuk:

[Globaliser]

mfaff - I made no such assumption as to what the bogus crew would do once airside. ... Perhaps you can suggest what they could do to terrorise the flying public.I can't speak for mfaff, but I've asked similar questions before and I can follow mfaff's line of reasoning.

It's beyond doubt that genuine aircrew don't need to be searched to such a high level, given that they are already trusted not to do any damage once they have control of the aircraft.

But suppose that genuine aircrew are searched to a lower level and are permitted to bring through items that could disguise bomb parts. And suppose that genuine aircrew are searched like this in a place to which bogus aircrew also have access (classically, the shared public security search point).

Wouldn't that open up the possibility that the bogus aircrew could bring through bomb parts - that aren't detected because they're wrongly treated as genuine aircrew - and then either use the bomb parts themselves once they have boarded an aircraft (whether still in their disguise or not), or pass them on to the real bombers who have separately passed through the security checkpoint "clean"?

I think that part of mfaff's point is that you have to make sure that if you're going to search genuine aircrew to a lower level and allow them to bring more things through the security checkpoint, you also have to make sure that they are genuine. If you can be assured of that, then you can relax. But so long as an imposter is able to use that checkpoint undetected by whatever bored or incompetent security screener is on duty that day, you don't want to open up a hole in your defences.

[Mentaleena]

So, according to the above logic, we're alright then.
It's the bogus buggers that aren't!
But nevertheless we need to be fluffed about with every day, because the bogus crew may just turn up one day and try to gain entry!
So if I was the bogus crew, would I be coming and going through this effin place for 16 years now?????
I don't think I trust any of the security guards either.
What a load of bollox! :=

[111boy]

[QUOTE=haughtney1;

1. Once locked behind our bullet-proof door, there is no need for exploding shoes, underpants, toothpaste, contact lense fluid.
QUOTE]


hold on a minute, no need for underpants ??? really ?

out of interest how long does it take to train to be a BAA security person ?

[bushbolox]

Penko, you must be referring to the FAA ATPL (ATP). :}

Bottom Line(s) as someone pointed out. Itsa ll pointless A) because since day one there has been no change o flights originating outside the UK and heading in , apart from the redneck of A.
B) Crew dont need a chemistry set to cause a big bang. That really should be the end of the arguements.
Lets focus on slagging off the government instead of each other.

Dodgy legislation empowers some idiots in security no more than the ANO empowers some t0ssers with an ATPL with absolute authority in an aircraft. Both sets of t0ssers are the ones that cant use the authority or powers in a reasoned and civilised manner and confuse said powers with achievement instead of mandate. Thats why we Pilots have CRM, to learn to get on with lesser mortals.

[Nov71]

Does the relaxation in cabin luggage size mean we can carry on the approved size pre-emergency?
I would prefer an approved EU wide size standard (based onoverall dimensions) than airline specific restrictions. My cabin luggage tends toward the BA standard but determined by approval rating at purchase.

[NWT]

As to fake crews. At most UK airports to get throught security you have to have your ID card swiped.....however if you are foreign crew, its OK just show the ID, no check if its genuine...no real way of UK security checking, agreed they go through xray etc but a bit of inconsistancy there....all the more reason for better IDs

[matblack]

Return flight to MAN today from Gothenburg airport. No extra security at all. No shoe inspection, no need to take laptop out of bag, nasal spray liquid no problem. Similar to my flight last week from cph.That's 2 examples in 2 weeks of lots of security on the way out of the UK but none on the way back.

[fyrefli]

Return flight to MAN today from Gothenburg airport. No extra security at all. No shoe inspection, no need to take laptop out of bag, nasal spray liquid no problem. Similar to my flight last week from cph.That's 2 examples in 2 weeks of lots of security on the way out of the UK but none on the way back.

Yep, it goes something like this:

UK reacts to apparent threat with misguided, hamfisted, industry-damaging ineptitude
UK tells EU and other partners they have to do same
EU and other partners, unsurprisingly, laugh in faces of UK, whilst raking in extra business from people changing plans to avoid UK airports
UK backs down

All entirely predictable (and indeed predicted in various places on these forums).

Cheers,

Rich.

[late developer]

Yep, it goes something like this:
UK reacts to apparent threat with misguided, hamfisted, industry-damaging ineptitude
UK tells EU and other partners they have to do same
EU and other partners, unsurprisingly, laugh in faces of UK, whilst raking in extra business from people changing plans to avoid UK airports
UK backs down
All entirely predictable (and indeed predicted in various places on these forums).
It is tempting to believe this, isn't it?
I fly a lot as a passenger from Stansted. I've had my shoes off twice in the last month. Security was busy on Tuesday evening but I noticed that even at six thirty in the evening a third of the checkin desks were not being used. Now we are over the school holidays hump, passenger numbers are down I guess. Despite this, significant numbers of passengers were being refused entry to security due to their odd shaped bag protuberances not being greased well enough to fit in the bag test box! Perhaps as many as 1 in 20 were required to go back to checkin judging from the length of the queues of people paying for an extra hold bag at the Ryanair ticket desks.
Many were stressed as they were running out of time. I saw one woman aged about thirty who obviously didn't get the message. She paid for the bag that didn't fit in the box and then rushed off back in the direction of checkin to get her boarding card, but still touting three heavy stuffed carrier bags! "She'll be back" the Ryanair desk clerk said. I can only assume she was too, more late and more stressed than ever.
At the other extreme, in July I whad been surprised to see EasyJet checkin signs which seemed to encourage any quantity of hand baggage "within reason" or similar. Anyone else see those?
Perhaps the UK reaction to the August terror threat was not so unreasonable if it has (by extremes) returned hand baggage levels to something manageable and sensible. I reckon it was getting a bit daft before.
I would hate to have to do a security job which involved constant flow and analysis of such a huge multitude of objects and in such large volumes as was beginning to be the case at the beginning of the summer holidays.
And as for the aircrew risk - in the days when I humped bags, a couple of years ago, I was surprised at the variety and location of "Aircrew" bags which "seemed" immune to any real control. They not infrequently got offloaded with other bags and had to be expeditiously returned. In addition to that, we were constantly being asked to use our own security passes to allow airside to landside access to cabin crews and flight deck crews who wanted to use a proper toilet or whatever. Ours was not to reason why they were not issued with passes. It is mistakes in procedure like those which light the way to where security flaws may lie. If those aspects alone have been tightened up a bit, then surely the recent clampdown has been a good thing?
The other thing I was starting to wonder about was the true weight and loading balance when so many passengers load themselves to the hilt without any final weighing being done. I've done this myself - I am not obese but weigh 100kg in my underpants (which I always insist on wearing in the passenger compartment!). I have checked in 15 or 20kg in the hold and then, aided by a heavy winter coat with deep pockets, a handbaggage allowance, a credit card and a duty free allowance I've easily managed to arrive at the aircraft steps with another 20kg about my person. How much of my 140kg actually makes it to the loading sheet? Something well less than 100kg I suspect.
If there were 180 like me on one of Mr Ryan's 800s, that would surely get us pretty close to the max before the fuel is added? A bit like quick turned-round overheated brakes, maybe it doesn't matter too much anymore? A 737-800s may not be toothpaste-proof but perhaps you can load it with as much bravado as a Cherokee Six out of an African dirt strip! What say any of you 737 jockeys out there?
Captain's toothpaste apart, perhaps all that has happened is that the security baseline has been quickly and effectively returned to somewhere sensible, and some semblance of baggage control has returned. It was all a jolly inconvenient ride in August, but personally I don't think the industry is suffering from any lingering ineptitude - Ryanair charge £7 now for any unexpectedly stowed bag on the day so they ain't exactly loss-making this week. When I travelled in August with an IATA-sized handbag Ryanair dared not charge me to stow it to fit the new rules. I had not downsized my handbag and assumed I'd simply get to put it in the hold for free, and in August I was exactly correct. Ryanair's latest amended business model means they do dare charge unsuspecting punters now of course. So I have already learned that handbags really do have to fit in the box or I shall be returned to Go and must pay seven quid! And I fully expect that caution still applies now that we are back to IATA size testboxes which get used rather than being mere decorative items!
Oh and one other thing - In August I got pulled up onboard when I placed a boxed bottle of whisky in the overhead bin - no bottles up there of course! I knew that, but it's the first time I have ever been pulled up for the mistake - damn those new transparent plastic bags! Cost me my extra legroom exit row seat that did! All for the common good I guess:O
I shall still wonder about that weight and balance question, however! I always time the take-off run and anything over 35 seconds to rotation has me wondering even more!

[ContIgnt]

Unfortunately firefli, I think your post sums up the whole situation perfectly ... :bored:

[pipistrelle]

Rumour at edinburgh is that if the security staff don't like your attitude they call the police. Didn't know attitude was a hanging offence.

[winkle]

but if a passenger has attitude we give them all the chances in the world and then nothing happens till the punches are thrown, but as crew one wrong word (different staff different rules at the same airport) is enough to end you up jobless. WHO IS PROTECTING WHO FROM WHO!!!!!!!
who's side are these people on. i think in future we the crews should call the ploice and have the security bod checked out after all they are meant to protect us from the pax NOT the other way round.
and as for checking soles of feet -what are you people on.
new rules look good for pax but what about the crew what change then please enlighten me.:ugh:

[pleasurablejo]

Why is it a security issure what size your hand baggage is at all ?, what's it got to do with them ? why can schedule pax carry bigger hand baggage through security than charter pax ??

[HZ123]

How quickly we slip back to our standard complacency and good humour. Until the next time.

[Desperate]

Rumour at edinburgh is that if the security staff don't like your attitude they call the police. Didn't know attitude was a hanging offence.
My advice is to insist the police are called. The police are bound by a number of rules - PACE (Police & Criminal Evidence Act) and whatever has replaced parts of it.

As long as you're not threatening or commit other cardinal sins (and you can guess they're all the ones that end in 'ism' or 'phobic') then the presence of the police should be to your benefit. You certainly won't lose your job and the police can be held to account for their actions - something lacking in the 'security' staff.

Don't forget, if there's a video of the screener's search point (and there nearly always is) then as long as you've only used your razor sharp wit you can rely on the video to clear you. Something tells me that you're entitled to be shown it under the Data Protection Act if you feature on it.

So don't be intimidated by the threat of Mr Plod. Chances are they'll be reasonable. If not you can complain about them and something should be done.

If it gets as far as Plod turning up, and as a result you feel sufficiently wound up, I'd also file a company ASR. Being wound up by security just before a flight is certainly an air safety matter. In all confrontations with security, ensure you get the names of others in the room.

You wouldn't want to be verballed up, would you.......

[Danny]

Unfortunately, too many people appear unable to understand that the title of this thread sates specifically: Airport Security (Merged) - Effects on Crew/Staff

There are threads dedicated to the effects on Pax & SLF in the appropriately titled 'Passengers & SLF forum (http://www.pprune.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=2&f=61)' so I'm now closing this one and crew can refer to the newest thread on the topic which is specifically aimed at 'Effects on Crew/Staff' by following this link (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=244472).