Qantas pilots refuse shoe security check

[Taildragger67]

Haven't seen this on the boards yet, so here goes...

Qantas pilots refuse shoe security check

SMH: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/qantas-pilots-refuse-shoe-security-check/2006/09/13/1157827007542.html

September 13, 2006 - 5:05PM

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.

The two pilots complained when they were asked to remove their shoes at the final inspection area at Manila's Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) late yesterday.

Octavio Lina, NAIA's operations manager, said the procedure was part of tight security measures being implemented at the airport to thwart terrorist attacks.

Lina said the pilots, both Australians, argued with NAIA security officials at the inspection area, claiming that they were being mistreated.

The two later yielded to authorities, allowing the flight which was carrying 200 passengers to take off 70 minutes later than its schedule.

Security at Philippine airports has been stepped up since last month following the discovery of a plot to bomb planes travelling from Britain to the United States.

Last week, a local newspaper reported that a security consultant was able to smuggle C-4 explosives attached to the sole of his shoes into a plane bound for a southern city.

The security consultant also claimed he built a bomb inside the plane's comfort room.

Philippine officials have denied the reported security lapse, saying the report was a hoax. They, however, implemented additional security measures to prevent such a breach.

Security experts have warned the Philippines is a key target of Islamic terrorists due to the country's staunch support for the US-led anti-terror campaign.

Al-Qaeda-linked Muslim rebels also operate and train in the country's south, including two Jemaah Islamiah militants wanted for the 2002 Bali bombings that killed more than 200 people, including 88 Australians.

DPA

"Comfort room"?!

[twiggs]

Comfort Room = Toilet, in the Philippines

[Taildragger67]

Comfort Room = Toilet, in the Philippines

Thanks. I guessed as much, but have never heard it used in connection with aircraft khazis before. Especially as it's an article from the German press agency.

But we digress from the point of the article.

[Tuner 2]

From the Arrivals/Departues data on qantas.com.au -
QF 20 ex MNL Monday, 11 September departed 8 minutes late. The QF20 Tuesday, 12 September departed 22 minutes late.
So, which date is this article referring to?

[Capt Basil Brush]

I can see why they were pissed off, however IMHO you are very keen trying that on in another country.

[Taildragger67]

I can see why they were pissed off, however IMHO you are very keen trying that on in another country.

ATEOTD, of what use is checking a pilot? If s/he wants to use the a/c for nefarious purposes, they only have to wait until the other pilot has to go for a squirt a la that Egyptian 767.

One doesn't have to stretch one's mind too far to think up several innocuous items in your standard flight deck which a rogue could use for nefarious purposes. Are pilots going to be told not to wear ties (at least the real variety... ) in case a rogue decides to... well, I'm not going to actually suggest it here, but you get my drift; FedEx 705.

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

So you automatically believe anything written in the press, do you takeonme or whatever your name is?:hmm:

[Lord Lucan]

Well, if the report is correct, good for them.

The let's pretend *security* and the semi trained airport cops have got completely out of hand.

And, TAKEONME.

Funny how it is always the PPL wannabes who have the wisdom and experience to call the professionals *cockheads*, and to presume to tell them how to conduct themselves.

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Frankly I am surprised it has taken so long.

How many pollies do you imagine get their shoes x-rayed at Canberra airport?

They are the ones who will usually make statemtents like:

"I make no apologies for our protective services ensuring the safety of the travelling public".

When they can explain how the pilots are a threat to the aircraft by what they take on the aircraft, I might consider their statements more than rhetorical populist fear-mongering non-sense.

Until then I would side with the actions of organisations like the BALPA and their criticisms of the ludicrous targetting of pilots in more and more ridiculous security screening. See this thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=238656)

This type of harassment is exactly the types of civil liberites that those tree hugging lefties (and the judiciary for good measure) were talking about when they vehemently protested such things as the US Patriot act and our Australian equivalents - all roller coasted through in a time of fear - as all good fascists do of course. And just to help it along we will eliminate what is left of alternative views in journalism in Australia by abandoning our media diversity laws.

[Tidbinbilla]

Takeonme is taking a little break. Obscenities won't be tolerated :=

[Chocks Away]

I tend to agree ****su.

Ayers Rock and Brisbane International are two security check points that stand out, in my own experiences.

A little bit of power in the hands of some of these idiots off the street, is damaging and interuptive. Many are often suspect in there own security clearances ie. Sydney is a perfect case in point, although Max M-W will not admit.

Many of the Terminal checks on Aircrew are rediculous, given all the Security checks and clearances we go through to issue/renew our Airside Pass. Logic has gone out the window!

They should be concentrating more on who and what's going on, on the Tarmacs!

Happy Landings:ok:

[Aussie]

This whole airport security is gettin out of hand!

Soon itll take 30mins just to clear security......


Aussie

[rmcdonal]

The idea with screening every one is that nothing should get into the secure area. I know it sounds stupid to screen a pilot (who if they really wanted to wouldn’t need a bomb to kill everyone onboard) but what if something explosive is planted on a pilot?
I’m not to sure how well a 747 flies when the Captains legs are blown off and sprayed around inside of the cockpit.
Or even something small hidden in your flight bag, tear gas in the cockpit that would be fun, unless you get the smoke mask on really early in the piece the damage is already done.
Did you leave your bag outside your hotel door for a few minutes this morning? How do you know no one was in your room while you where out for dinner?
Or maybe I have been sucked in by the anti-terrorist propaganda?
All the above said, I still think telling pilots to remove their wings because of the sharp bits is going just a little too far.

[RENURPP]

Ronald
There is some substance to what you say, and maybe if we never left the ground there wouldn't be a problem either.

All this security is rediculous until camel wearing drug smoking/pushing criminally convicted groundstaff are being checked.

I can proceed to an aircraft WITHOUT proceeding through security, as long as I do proceed through security prior to aircraft departure.

It does not make sense and does not work.

[tobzalp]

Comfort Room = Toilet, in the Philippines

I like how they call it "Happy House" in Vietnam.

[Aussie]

I like how they call it "Happy House" in Vietnam.


haha are you for real??? :p

Aussie

[rmcdonal]

RENURPP
Ahh yes the actual security personel and ground staff.... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I don't have nice things to say... so I wont say it. :}

[DutchRoll]

I would be really surprised if there wasn't more to this than is being reported. In hundreds of security checks ranging from benign to utterly insane and moronic, I've seen rolling eyes, muttering under the breath, and irritated looks but have NEVER seen a stubborn refusal by QF pilots to 'play the game'. If it came down to a choice of believing that both pilots were being completely ridiculous and obnoxious, or Manila airport security staff were being completely ridiculous and obnoxious, well.........

There's no doubt however that in the current climate QF management will want to put a certain spin on this.

[Wingspar]

Spot on Dutchy!

I can understand how some might find it offensive though to be subject to these checks especially when the pilot in command has the legal and final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft and all those on it.
Are these security people claiming the Captain is carrying DG's or forbidden items which would mean the Captain is breaking the law? And not to mention risking their employment and super?
They might as well charge him/her with a federal offence there and then!

A little respect might be in order!

[RYAN TCAD]

And now the pilots have been stood down pending investigation!

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/qantas-pilots-stood-down-over-shoe-fiasco/2006/09/14/1157827076064.html

[Selac66]

I hear that Birdsville airport is getting a new security fence around it. Are you feeling safe yet?

[tobzalp]

Is that because they are allowing people to NOT wear ASICs during the races and therefore do not want the terrorists to wander out of the movement area?

[Howard Hughes]

For once I am with the Qantas guys, I for one will always refuse to take off my shoes until they can prove to me how my shoes are a risk, or how they are setting off the metal detectors, fact is they can't. When buying shoes I always make sure I find shoes with absolutely NO METAL in them whatsoever, no metals in the sole, no tacks, no metal eyelets and no secret compartments for C4.

Where will it all end for crews? Metal detection? Nitrates screening? Plastic Explosive screening? Sniffer dogs? Body searches? Cavity searches? Breathalyzers? Drug tests? Profiling?

How many pilot initiated terrorist attacks will they stop?
NONE!!
Because we were never a threat in the first place! We are as much a threat as Nannas with knitting needles, it's just plain Wrong!!

PS: Don't even get me started on the mesh fences at regional airports, what or who is that stopping?

[rmcdonal]

"If it is good enough for the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Qantas chief executive officer and me to take their shoes off at security check-points, it is good enough for our pilots,"
Realy? I thought the PM had his own 'Airforce One'?

[B A Lert]

Why shouldn't pilots have to pass through the same security checks as the punters? Are they thought to be exempt because they wear white shirts, ties, gold bars and in some cases, scrambled egg on their hats? I would have thought that they should be setting the example to everyone else, and also realise that there are always impostors.

In the case under discussion, how does the security guy/s in Manila know that the two people concerned were in fact the genuine article? Is a copy of every ASIC card equivalent available to them for immediate validation? How do they know that the cards may have been stolen and doctored, or fraudulently produced? After all, scammers have access to the same equipment that's available to government and, God forbid, produce fake cards.

It's time to chill out a bit, be mature and professional and realise that security is there for all: as well as obtaining a benefit from strict security checks there are responsibilities that go to the contribution of the benefit. I'll ask the question again, why should crew be exempt from security checks, especially at airports outside the purview of the authority that has issued their security cards? Can't also help but wonder how 'smart' and arrogant and professional were the two Qantas blokes when stood up in Manila?

[Capt Basil Brush]

Has anyone bothered to chat to the security people while they are checking your shoes, or checking you out for explosive traces?

I have, several times. And guess what? They are doing what they are directed to by their employer. ie. They are just doing their jobs like anyone else!

I am getting sick of the high and mighty questioning there actions. If you have a problem with security, complain to DOTARS - the people who really dont have a clue about airport security!

Ask the catering guys about how they, and their trucks, are checked after coming airside from non-secure areas. They are not. They get waved through all the time. That is the biggest joke.

Rant over.

[twiggs]

Can't you guys see it is not about whether the pilot has an intention of committing a terrorist act or has deliberately planted something that could be used for such an act?
As rmcdonal and BA Lert pointed out, something could have been planted by someone else, or the pilots could be imposters.

What an easy target flight crew become if they do not have the same security checks as everyone else?

Here's a scenario : Horny and drunk pilot takes hot girl back to hotel room thinking she wants him bad.
After some hot action he passes out, leaving said girl opportunity to substitute his shoes with a pair of Richard Reid's shoes (or turning his shoes into such a pair).

[Wingspar]

Can't you guys see the stupidity here?

Remember a flight up near WSSS a couple of years back. Genuine pilot wearing the right uniform, ID goes through security and then some say proceeds to fly the aircraft supersonic into terra firma!

But he had the right shoes on!!!:ugh:

[DutchRoll]

They are doing what they are directed to by their employer. ie. They are just doing their jobs like anyone else!
I am getting sick of the high and mighty questioning there actions. If you have a problem with security, complain to DOTARS - the people who really dont have a clue about airport security!
Hmmmm.....

Earlier this year my old man, aged 72 and on crutches, had just undergone a knee replacement and was going through Sydney security, escorted by his carer AND his referring doctor and surprise surprise, set the metal detector off. After stripping down to holding up his trousers, he still set the metal detector off. Unsurprisingly, the hand-wand went off only when waved over his new knee. Undaunted by the explanations from all and sundry, including the signed paperwork regarding his knee replacement, the security staff insisted that he stand without his crutches and walk over to where they could examine him even further. His doctor stated that he could not walk unassisted as the knee was not weight-bearing and making him walk without assistance could cause him to collapse. Do you think the security staff gave a toss? Do you think they offered to help him? Do you think they allowed the carer to assist him? No, ON ALL COUNTS. The 72 year old potential terrorist hobbling around on crutches with the suspect semtex and detonator packed inside his kneecap under the fresh scar was going to walk over there come hell or high water, without assistance. He eventually got so p***ed off that he stumbled a couple of steps & managed to make it before someone rushed over to prop him up (security staff still not allowing his carer through). Their response? 'Oh gee, it looks like you really have had knee surgery'.

Please don't tell me that they were just 'doing their jobs'. You are allowed to perform your job and use your brain at the same time, but this often does not appear to be encouraged in the airport security industry.

[Lord Lucan]

Twiggs,

These fanciful scenarios with pilot seductions and shoe substitutions belong in airport novels, not in planning airport security.

All these poeple who are outraged by so-called pilot arrogance just do not get the point.

First - Airport security is a joke. It is a let's pretend show. An illusion. Anyone who works airside knows this and knows ways that circumvent security when it gets to be more obnoxious than usual. Even now I imagine UK airport workers have developed sophisticated scams to get their currys airside.

Second - Pilots do not need a penknife, nail clippers or a bottle of water to miss-use an airplane. The can do it any time they damn well chose. They could do it nekkid if they had to.

Personally, I never give security a hard time, other than the odd muttering when having to remove my shoes again. However, I think the whole thing is expensive timewasting nonsense, and I avoid it whenever I can. Does this make me arrogant, or does it just show I am better informed and have a realistic view or the current situation.

[twiggs]

Lord Lucan,
Then we will have to agree to disagree and many more pilots will make life harder than it has to be for themselves and everyone else, and will get more grey hairs prematurely in the process.

[Selac66]

I agree with the 'just doing their job' sentiment. There will always be some security chaps who prove the adage that 'rules are for the strict adherence of fools and the guidance of the wise'.

It's interesting to consider the $209,244 being spent to tighten up security in Birdsville in light of President Musharraf's speech before the European Parliament’s foreign affairs committee last Tuesday. Since this speech will not see the light of day in Western mainstream media here are a few bits;

"Whatever extremism or terrorism is in Pakistan is a direct fallout of the 26 years of warfare and militancy around us. It gets back to 1979 when the West, the United States and Pakistan waged a war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan,” Musharraf told EU lawmakers.

“We launched a jihad, brought in mujahideen from all over the Muslim world, the US and the West…We armed the Taliban and sent them in; we did it together. In 1989 everyone left Pakistan with 30,000 armed mujahideen who were there, and the Taliban who were there,” he said, adding that Pakistan had “paid a big price for being part of the coalition that fought the Soviet Union.”

[GreatCircle]

Well, if the report is correct, good for them.

The let's pretend *security* and the semi trained airport cops have got completely out of hand.

And, TAKEONME.

Funny how it is always the PPL wannabes who have the wisdom and experience to call the professionals *cockheads*, and to presume to tell them how to conduct themselves.

Perhaps, it's something to do with the arrogance us professionals demonstrate from time-to-time that causes such reaction...

[18-Wheeler]

Hmmmm.....
Earlier this year my old man, aged 72 and on crutches, had just undergone a knee replacement and was going through Sydney security, escorted by his carer AND his referring doctor and surprise surprise, set the metal detector off. After stripping down to holding up his trousers, he still set the metal detector off. Unsurprisingly, the hand-wand went off only when waved over his new knee. Undaunted by the explanations from all and sundry, including the signed paperwork regarding his knee replacement, the security staff insisted that he stand without his crutches and walk over to where they could examine him even further. His doctor stated that he could not walk unassisted as the knee was not weight-bearing and making him walk without assistance could cause him to collapse. Do you think the security staff gave a toss? Do you think they offered to help him? Do you think they allowed the carer to assist him? No, ON ALL COUNTS. The 72 year old potential terrorist hobbling around on crutches with the suspect semtex and detonator packed inside his kneecap under the fresh scar was going to walk over there come hell or high water, without assistance. He eventually got so p***ed off that he stumbled a couple of steps & managed to make it before someone rushed over to prop him up (security staff still not allowing his carer through). Their response? 'Oh gee, it looks like you really have had knee surgery'.
Please don't tell me that they were just 'doing their jobs'. You are allowed to perform your job and use your brain at the same time, but this often does not appear to be encouraged in the airport security industry.

That's disgusting.
They should be fired on the spot for disgraceful behaviour like that.

[Taildragger67]

Heard at a security checkpoint, from the North American pilot of a large Asian airline-operated widebody to the 'security' operative, after he'd had his nail clippers taken:

"Buddy, when I'm in the left-hand seat, it's my airplane. If I want it to go into the water, it's going into the water, no matter how long fingernails my fingernails are."

One suspects he could add "whether I'm wearing my shoes or not" to that.

I shall try to summarise both sides of the argument:
i. a pilot does not need other weaponry to down aircraft. That has been tragically proven.
ii. the security people are doing their jobs, and have probably been told that if they don't they'll be sacked (and hence won't be able to pay their mortgage). Blaming them is shooting the messenger.

Fair summary?

[LNAV VNAV]

ATEOTD, of what use is checking a pilot?

What if a pilot wants to smuggle something airside for use by others on flights other than his/hers?

Also, did these pilots refuse to have their briefcases x-rayed as well? Because if the shoe part of security is not ok, why is the rest ok?

[PENKO]

Heard at a security checkpoint, from the North American pilot of a large Asian airline-operated widebody to the 'security' operative, after he'd had his nail clippers taken:
"Buddy, when I'm in the left-hand seat, it's my airplane. If I want it to go into the water, it's going into the water, no matter how long fingernails my fingernails are."
One suspects he could add "whether I'm wearing my shoes or not" to that.
I shall try to summarise both sides of the argument:
i. a pilot does not need other weaponry to down aircraft. That has been tragically proven.
ii. the security people are doing their jobs, and have probably been told that if they don't they'll be sacked (and hence won't be able to pay their mortgage). Blaming them is shooting the messenger.
Fair summary?

Almost.
There is absolutely no reason for the pilot to say: why search me, I have a crash axe.

Does the security man say: Why search me, I can let my Taleban friend through unsearched if I mean any harm.

Does the cleaner say: Why search me, I have complete unsupervised acces to the whole aircraft and no one searches my vacuum cleaner anyway.

Does the caterer say: Why search me, if I want to I can spoil the crew food.

Does the firefighter say: Why search me, I have a big red truck.

Does, does, does...
Use your imagination. Pilots are not that special a breed around the airport. We all must play the same game.

[LNAV VNAV]

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.

[bananas_oz]

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.

[DEFCON4]

Qantas pilot suspended after refusing shoePublished: September 14, 2006


MANILA, Philippines 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 Thursday.

The pilots on the Manila-Sydney flight late Tuesday 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."

He said the pilots later relented when security officers insisted on the check.

John Borghetti, Qantas executive general manager, said in a statement from Sydney that the chief pilot was disallowed from flying while an investigation is under way. An airline spokeswoman said the flight was delayed for 22 minutes.

"If it is good enough for the (Australian) prime minister (John Howard), the treasurer (Peter Costello), the Qantas chief executive officer (Geoff Dixon) and me to take off their shoes at security screening points, it is good enough for our pilots," Borghetti said.

"All security issues are taken very seriously at Qantas. This matter is the subject of a full investigation, and the chief pilot has been stood down while the investigation is under way," Borghetti said, adding that appropriate action will be taken once the probe is completed.

Caro said the mandatory removal of shoes for all passengers, airport workers and airline staff at the final pre-departure security check was among the new security measures, in addition to prohibiting liquids and gels as hand-carry items.

[pakeha-boy]

..hate to say it men...we are in a co-operate,graduate mode,and there is not really much you can do about that......whats really disgraceful is the fact that so many airport workers are allowed to enter airport,supposedly sterile areas without being checked themselves.

I talk to many airport personal who will admit to not being screened....talked to a Auckland security bloke last week,who admited the whole thing was a bloody joke,they know it and if the public knew of these practises,there would be a huge stink.

My company has a very strict policy regarding security issues....the bottom line...you cock up...look for another job...their view is this..we dont like it ...you dont like...the whole system sucks.....but we dont make the rules,we just follow them......PB

[Pete Conrad]

PB, I agree with you mate......there are allot of airport personnel that are not screened, it's the ultimate hypocracy.

I had security staff at BNE international about 6 months ago just about tear the flight plan out of my hands to check it to see I wasn't harbouring anything suspect.

Security people are over zealous and lack the intellect to apply basic common sense in matters of elderly with metal hips, knees etc, and plus, they like to play big authoritarian over us tech crew. Says something about their recruitment process really.

[RENURPP]

My company has a very strict policy regarding security issues....the bottom line...you cock up...look for another job...their view is this..we dont like it ...you dont like...the whole system sucks.....but we dont make the rules,we just follow them......PB
Today 19:46


yes, the company I work for feels the same.
They don't, how ever have a problem with sending AOG equipment and other company paraphernalia on the flight deck having never been through security or a DG's acceptance.
Good for the goose, good for the gander. Send it via a freight company is my attitude. I will not accept responsibility for it any more.

They are not at all worried about the hassles of security unless it affects them, (e.g. delayed flights) and at present it doesn't, it only affects us.

[Chocks Away]

Please don't tell me that they were just 'doing their jobs'. You are allowed to perform your job and use your brain at the same time, but this often does not appear to be encouraged in the airport security industry.

:D Well said Dutchy

'rules are for the strict adherence of fools and the guidance of the wise'. ...it was obviously a fool who was doing security, during that story recounting the elder gentleman with knee surgery in Sydney.

...and Pete, well summed up, in your last paragraph. Here, here!

[DEFCON4]

BNE Security personnel believe that to communicate with Japanese Pax in transit from Osaka you simply have to scream at them in English.
Welcome to Australia folks my name is "Bubba" I am your security officer today.
GET OVER HERE!!!!

[Duff Man]

OK, screening is inconsistant, over-zealous, and at some special times inappropriate. But PILOT screening must consider the opportunity for imposters ... this is not fiction fantasy land but real history. A couple of badly-intentioned men in uniform and flight bags with boarding passes issued c/- ABC TV's Chaser, you get the picture.

At least a couple of you did earlier in this thread. :ugh:

[Keg]

I'm yet to meet a QF driver who refuses screening point blank. I've met a few who've asked to be screened privately or more appropriately but blanket refusal. There is more to this than meets the eye and perhaps we should wait for it to all come out in the wash.

As for the success or otherwise of screening, I support doing it but I don't believe for a second that it's fool proof or has the ability to block 'weapons' or DGs from getting on board. I know that because I've been a screener- albeit a long, long time ago. The assessment as to the cognitive skills of most (but not all) screeners is correct. A lot of screeners are that because they can't get another job elsewhere. I lasted just three months before I went hunting for a better job elsewhere. Found it and started within four days. :E

[RENURPP]

Duff Man

I sort of agree.
I am sure thats exactly how a DOTARs Bureaucrat does see it.
Surely there are smarter less offensive ways of getting the job done and more efficiently.

I can, as a pilot get access to my aircraft before security screening as I said above. If I can, so can a terrorist dressed up as a pilot. So Security screening pilots has solved NOTHING.

How about they actually check the vailidty of our ASIC, bit like customs do a passport, that will offer a lot more info then checking some ones bloody shoes.
All they acheive is a terrorist with nothing in his/her shoes having access to the aircraft before passeners, then he has access to all items onboard. Hmmmm Good thinking.


There are so many holes in the current system I don't know were to start criticicing it!
But, if you beleiev that checking the crew and making them take their shoes off helps, well I hope your right.

[Duff Man]

RENURPP

There sure are better ways ... Max the Axe is pushing for intelligent screening

Call for frequent flyers to skip airport checks (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/call-for-frequent-flyer-fasttracking/2006/09/14/1157827094284.html)

[Swingwing]

I think the issue that needs to be discussed in a more clear-eyed way is the one to which Max the Axe is alluding - targeted screening. The elephant in the room is the recognition that the vast majority of terrorist attacks including and since 9/11 have been carried out by young single Muslim males. Unfortunately, the barriers to stating this fact, and then acting on it, are so far too high for policymakers to tackle.

This point was recently made starkly by Lord Stevens, a former Commissioner of the London Met:

The furor began on Sunday when Lord Stevens, a former Metropolitan Police commissioner, endorsed the approach in a commentary in News of the World.

Criticizing the rigorous checks imposed on all passengers now — with a large percentage still being searched by hand, in addition to the usual checks — Lord Stevens said that he was a “white 62-year-old, 6-foot 4-inch suit-wearing ex-cop” who did not fit the profile of a suicide bomber.

But, he said, he and others were still subject to strict screening rules that slowed the process and wasted resources. “The truth is, Islamic terrorism in the West has universally been carried out by young Muslim men, usually of ethnic appearance, almost always traveling alone or in very small groups,” he wrote.

Like all such points, it's perhaps made in an over simplistic way in order to be suitable for mass media consumption - but the theory behind it deserves rational debate. Granted, it would need to be very carefully applied - the "shoe bomber" Richard Reid did not look like the archetypal terrorist, so an overly specific approach might have missed him - but surely the resources being invested in security could be better applied than in the blanket fashion we currently see?

Under such a scheme, Dutch Roll's elderly dad, or two uniformed, English speaking, ASIC carrying pilots bound for an empty cockpit might merit less scrutiny than myself - a younger male usually travelling by myself. I for one would be prepared to accept a little more personalised attention if I thought that the results were likely to be better for everyone.

A corollary to that is that there would be a lot less emphasis on things and a lot more emphasis on people. Rather than searching everybody's bag for a gel filled bra or a tube of face cream, we should be looking at who is coming through security and then work out whether they merit a closer search. This is starting to be recognised, even in the paranoid US, with less focus on knitting needles carried by grandmothers, and more focus on younger people with big backpacks. This seems to me to make perfect sense...

But who's prepared to say this and then implement it? No-one, I'm afraid.

[lowerlobe]

A lot of this debate is very academic but the bottom line is...

What is the problem with taking your shoes off???

It is not as is the pilots were asked for an internal exam...

The next thing is that some techies will argue that they don't need to carry ID's because they are pilots and no pilot would ever do any thing wrong...

If the media report is correct and that is a big IF because we all know how media reports can distort or bend the truth then why all the fuss with this issue.

[twiggs]

“The truth is, Islamic terrorism in the West has universally been carried out by young Muslim men, usually of ethnic appearance, almost always traveling alone or in very small groups,” he wrote.

This profiling may be relevant for whether to allow certain individuals to fly at all, but I believe it is dangerous to apply such profiling to the search procedure to prevent dangerous items entering the sterile area.

As I tried to highlight earlier, if a certain type of person is allowed to have a lesser degree of potential weapon detection screening than another type of person, that person will be targeted by the terrorist as an easier way to get their weapons into the sterile area.

[RENURPP]

lowerlobe

Well whats wrong with having to show ID before you order fish and chips, carry an your passport with you at the beach. Let the tax man into your home office and have every transaction you ever made available on line including cash transactions, he should know about them shouldn't he.

How about if Dept of motor transport, maybe we should all have to go via a checking station every day we drive just to make sure our tyres are Ok and that our brake lights etc work!

There is nothing wrong with taking your shoes off un less your feet stink! But it doesn't prove anything its just a bloody hindrince. I do it with a smile and say helo to the dopey buggers on the other side. They are just doing a job, a job I reckon is stupid, but they are happy so, good on them.

[Capt Basil Brush]

DutchRoll,

Yes the story about your old man is appaling, and the security people involved in that instance should be sacked.

I am sure there are a million other 'passenger stories' similar or worse than that - unfortunately.

The discussion here involves aircrew and screening. I think think the mojority of the screening people are just doing their job. I agree some of them have a chip on their shoulder about something - but so do lots of pilots. Refusing to take your shoes off, or whatever, is just raising your blood pressure, and is only doing yourself harm.

Take your shoes off, move through, and put them back on again. How hard is that really?

[404 Titan]

Buy yourself a pair of RM's and relax I say. The world has bigger problems and this aint one of them.:ok:

[Jet_A_Knight]

On the face of it, surrendering to 'security checks' is not such a great deal.

On a broader scale, the surrender of personal freedom and privacy by default, is being done WILLINGLY by the population in the interest of the never ending 'War On Terror'.

Hypnotised and hysterical, that's all.

PS Good on the QF drivers for trying to keep some of their dignity.:D

[Possum 15]

The obvious, and perfect, anti-terrorist measure is to prevent pilots entering the flight deck. This also gaurds against "pilot error".

[Jay Arr]

I'd put some mitigating background info on the Manila event here. However, sorry, upon reflection, I'll delete it and instead the info to AIPA and Flight Ops, where it will better support the crew. Sorry about that, folks.

[Pete Conrad]

Tolerance is a drug, and too much of any drug will kill you. I for one am fed up with over zealous twits that weild false authority and have no compassion, nor have the intellect to realise that a bit of common sense goes a long way.

[Possum 15]

Confrontation and conflict are also "drugs" that produce the adrenaline that some egos crave. Without knowing the details of this circumstance, one other way of dealing with this type of request is to cheerfully comply and then do something logical, in concert with those who can modify a faulty system, to effect a better outcome for all concerned.
However, to practice what I preach - Pete Conrad I take your point.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

'rules are for the strict adherence of fools and the guidance of the wise'. I wonder which category the screening staff lay in :E

You have to screen everyone. As (was it B A Lert?) was saying, it really can't be that hard to get your hands on a QF uniform and an ASIC if you really wanted to. (to take advantage of a "No pilot screening" process.)

Yes there are gaps in security, but that doesn't mean we say "Stuff it, let's not bother with this screening business". After all we all lock our front doors despite the ease of a burglar smashing a window to break in.

I suspect in the next 10 years security screening will advance to make things easier to pax and crew alike. There is just too much money to be made if you come up with a product that speeds screening up. No doubt they'll come up with someone that result in no "off with the shoes mate" soon enough.

The people you need to blame for all this unfortunately killed themselves along with a whole lot of innocent people :(

[Taildragger67]

There's another side to this.

If pilots voluntarily, without being forced or asked at a general level, agree to be screened when asked at a security point (you'll note I do not use the word 'submit'), then it could be seen as a sign of leadership, as in "well we, who fly the aircraft, agree to be screened, then there is no excuse for any passenger to argue against being screened"; further it's a positive approach, rather than one where the pilots are seen as submitting to the screeners.

What's needed is a bit of communication from the security authorities to get the buy-in of all parties.

It might be a fine distinction, but such an approach places the power back in the pilots' hands (as in, saying that 'we will do this, if asked at the checkpoint'). It's like being married: you willingly agree not to go out and play away :{ , it's not something forced upon you, even though the effect is the same.

But as has been said, there's probably more to this than what's in the SMH story. I shall await further facts with interest.

[Much Ado]

I dissagree,

The chances of a terrorist falsifying an ASIC/Company ID/uniform AND being able to bluff the other 11-15 members of 'his' crew are bordering on bizarre.

Even if in the remotest of chances if he makes it to the cockpit he will have no idea of the company SOPs/procedures...even if he is type rated on the aircraft.

If an airline has a sleeper tech crew member no amount of screening at the terminal will pick him out because he will have been with the airline for years and have no requirement to carry anything suspicious on board with him...merely wait for the unsuspecting crew member to go for a comfort break or knock him out with the crash axe and use the pax restraint kit to immobilise him...and then lock the bullet proof door so no one can interfere with his plans.

The type of screening that aircrew are being subjected to at the present time is a criminal waste of resources.

[Taildragger67]

The type of screening that aircrew are being subjected to at the present time is a criminal waste of resources.

My thought is that by being proactive about it, you are no longer "being subjected to"; the power would no longer be them telling you to do it (and so having the power), but more the pilot voluntarily agreeing to it (and so having the power).

I also think the 'leading by example' case is pretty strong.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

My thought is that by being proactive about it, you are no longer "being subjected to"; the power would no longer be them telling you to do it (and so having the power), but more the pilot voluntarily agreeing to it (and so having the power).
I also think the 'leading by example' case is pretty strong.

Probably as bizarre as a British citizen having explosives in the soles of his shoes and trying to ignite it.

On Sep 10, 2001 what did you think the probably was of 4 aircraft being hijacked and flown into buildings was?

Nothing is "bizarre" to these mentally ill people.

[Much Ado]

Professional aircrew have a responsibility to highlight the grotesque waste of resources.

Drug mules can secret best part of a KG of heroin in their anal cavity/stomach in condoms...if a terrorist decides to do the same with a kg of C4 you'd be happy for all pilots to be subjected to strip searches and the rubber glove treatment as a sign that it is OK for the pax to be so treated?

Treating aircrew as potential terrorists is a COMPLETE waste of resources...I have been a professional pilot for over 20 years...I am not the problem I am the solution.

Airport security did not fail on 911...the Central Intelligence Agency did.

Are they screening all train passengers in London or Madrid post the attacks there?

Do they screen all truck drivers?

NO!!!

We have been sold a pup by the DOTARS/Govt...empire building twats:mad:

[twiggs]

I dissagree,

The chances of a terrorist falsifying an ASIC/Company ID/uniform AND being able to bluff the other 11-15 members of 'his' crew are bordering on bizarre.

Once again the point is being totally missed.
The false uniform in this scenario is only needed to get a weapon past security (if screening is relaxed for pilots).
After the weapon is through, the pilot disguise is not necessarily part of the remaining plot.

[Much Ado]

Is the crash axe?

Respectfully I would suggest you're missing the point.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

1> Pilot dress up through security unchecked.
2> Hands whatever bad item he has to mate who is pax
3> Walks back out through security.

[DEFCON4]

I would suggest that the aircraft is the weapon.....as was evidenced by the Egypt Air incident.
The only person capable of commandeering an aircraft is an existing aircrew member.
This person can either be a sleeper or someone who has gone over the edge.
Airport screening cannot detect either.
I suggest that the airlines themselves are responsible for both scenarios through self monitoring of personnel.
A CC member with a CPL is also a possibility.
All have flight deck access.
None of the terrorists involved in 911 was employee of the airlines involved.
If wrong I am sure I will be corrected.
Perhaps the screening of crew should be done on the ground and at the entrance to the aero bridge.
You are certainly more visble to the pax on your aircraft.

[Much Ado]

1> Most places these days crew member's name checked off against (airline supplied) gen dec.
2> Operating tech crew have no requirement to wander back and forth through security.
3> A swipe style ID card with secure biodata including airline/rank/picture/licence number in concert with 1> would solve most identification issues.
4> Security to have computer link to responsible Aviation Authority data base to compare biodata information.
5> Many airports screen aircrew twice and passengers once...why?
6> Many airports moving screening to the gate rather than the terminal...making it infinitely more difficult for a fake pilot to succeed.

I have not suggested aircrew should NOT be screened enroute to their aircraft I have said The type of screening that aircrew are being subjected to at the present time is a criminal waste of resources.

Just because something is theoretically possible is no reason to treat career aircrew with a long history as such as terrorists.:ugh:

[Chimbu chuckles]

Gotta agree with MA here...I am screened 8 or 10 times a mth and am getting pretty sick of taking my shoes off and removing my reading glasses case from my nav bag and locking it in my hold bag (as happened at LHR recently) when I could be stripped naked and walk to the aircraft naked and still have the ultimate weapon at my disposal...185000kg of aircaft, pax and fuel.

Limited resources are being wasted checking me in this manner when it could all be so simple.

When travelling as a pax my passport is held up to a reader which brings up a world of potential data..like any outstanding traffic infringements (in Australia at least).

Why cannot similar technolgy be used to vet my entrance to my workspace?

Present security is clumsy and very hit and miss...for instance when my reading glasses case was removed from my nav bag by security staff they completely missed my spare ones...for 4 mths they missed a metal dinner knife which had fallen unnoticed into my nav bag....goodness knows how many times my navbag was sent through x ray machines in 6 countries in that 4 mths.

I have an ASIC card and a long history as a professional pilot vetted by my employer...all I ask is to be treated with some professional respect.

In London a crew bus picks up the entire crew at the slip hotel and transports us to a crew screening point and then to the aircraft...there is no chance of a fake crew member passing himself off and sneaking stuff to a passenger in the terminal...in fact with the exception of our home base we are always transported as a crew to and from the airport...which would be the same for all airlines away from home base...where is the opportunity for a terrorist to pass himself off as a crew member successfully?

[Lord Lucan]

Pass-A-Frozo
1> Pilot dress up through security unchecked.
2> Hands whatever bad item he has to mate who is pax
3> Walks back out through security.

Yes this is quite possible. The point is that there are about a squillion other ways of getting crap airside. And there are quite a few people get to pass unchecked.

How is your scenario any different from:

Bent Security staff hands illicit item to mate/pax

[pakeha-boy]

,...this one has to top the list...the yanks are now trying to push/pursue a Registered/preferred traveller programme through.For approx $200,you get a security check ,to prove your not a terrorist,you get your ID card ,then you get to "speed through" the security checkpoints.....bloody lovely!!!

The problem....those that ply their trades at these airports,flight crew,Lame,s,and others,get to stand in line,scratching their nuts,looking for seagulls.I reckon 26yrs of checks,security checks,verified airline employment doesnt mean jack-poop anymore....

At every airport I go through ,thee seems to be a small fraternity of airline workers that are able to bypass a system,which is manadatory for Paxs,and all others that want to enter a secure area,and until there is one standard for all,this debate and the security of all airports will always be at risk....from anybody,ie the most suspicious to the poor bloke with the knee surgery.....unfair,but when you have a system with double triple standards,go figure.

So I reckon Ive flown at least a billion miles,so my advice....apply for the registered Pax Programme as you will almost certainly get to work on time without having to take your shoes off...PB

[Kanga767]

For approx $200,you get a security check ,to prove your not a terrorist,you get your ID card

I thought that's what an ASIC was?

K

[lowerlobe]

Just because there are other areas of security that are less than perfect ,it does not mean that we should create others.
Can any pilot here say that no pilot is capable of a terrorist act simply because of their job description.To use the argument that it is unreasonable to expect tech crew to go through security just because they are pilots and could use the crash axe if they so choose is ridiculous.
We are supposed to close loopholes or openings that individuals or terrorist groups would like or are able to exploit not create more .By all means close or do the best we can to limit any other areas of security risk whether that is from the catering trucks or whatever.
Why give anyone the chance to create more chaos just because some of you are offended by the suggestion that one of your colleagues could do something that 99.9999999999% of us would never do.

As I said before at the end of the day all they are asking you is to remove your shoes....is that so hard after all

[B A Lert]

As I said before at the end of the day all they are asking you is to remove your shoes....is that so hard after all

For some people, yes, especially when both feet are in the mouth as would seem to be often the case!! :ok:

[Chimbu chuckles]

Ok lowerlobe why, in your view, is not passenger screening being carried out on London trains?

if 99.99% of pilots are not a security issue why waste resources searching them when the .00001% who may be would not get past the type of security check that MA indicates above...a database screening for the correct crew members?

You'll be happy to undergo a strip/body cavity search?

99.9999999% of people would not transport explosives in such a way but by you logic we should still be searched.

It would be interesting to see how you would react if you were searched in this manner everytime you enter your workspace:ugh:

[stiffwing]

Now that the Capts. name has been made public (elsewhere), it is hardly surprising that he is the one in question

[blueloo]

Stiffwing, yes maybe so, but at least someone made a bit of a stand. possibly not the right thing to do, but maybe if a few of us indicated a bit of 'unhappiness' at the situation rather than just rolling over, eventually (and this really is wishful thinking) the powers that be may create a policy after some thought, rather than just to satisfy public perceptions.

further if you did find the source with names, then you will have also read that there was a bit to do with floor cleanliness, and seating availability........ (maybe that was just there argument).


additionally, what type of weasil is the airport security bloke to release the names!

[Veruka Salt]

Guys, I was there, so let me post a few facts. . .
1. Captain did not object to removing shoes, he questioned whether he was required to remove them in view of the passengers. This was taken by the airport authorities as being refusal to comply with security instructions. His objection had nothing to do with floor cleanliness.
2. He and F/O were thus taken into adjacent room. Airport Manager and QF security notified. Captain subsequently agreed to remove shoes at normal walk through screening point in view of passengers.
3. Flight departed 22 mins late, not 70 mins late as reported by media. 15 mins of the 22 min delay was due to late arrival of inbound service, so only 7 mins of the delay is attributable to the incident.
4. Best part of all . . . . the directive from NAIA Management for crew to remove shoes had been repealed the previous day. The crew were not required to remove their shoes in the first place.:= Confirmed by Qantas Security.

And for Stiffwing, regardless of what any of us think of the Captain in question, I think that having to change hotel rooms 5 times due to construction noise prior to a 2 crew night sector would have made anyone "testy".

[B A Lert]

1. Captain did not object to removing shoes, he questioned whether he was required to remove them in view of the passengers. This was taken by the airport authorities as being refusal to comply with security instructions. His objection had nothing to do with floor cleanliness.


Don't tell me! He was embarassed because he was wearing his old 'holey' socks that didn't match his uniform trousers? :) :)

[TruBlu351]

1> Pilot dress up through security unchecked.
2> Hands whatever bad item he has to mate who is pax
3> Walks back out through security.

I'll be keeping an eye out for you in your fancy dress and bulging pockets :}

[pakeha-boy]

lowerlobe...personally mate ,I dont have an argument with with your comments...but to me its seems you paint all pilots as arrogant bartards...:= my issue with this whole security delemma revolves around the fact that airports are where we ply our trade....screen the bloody lot of us,but make it so we are separated from the cattle lots....give us our own lines,give us preference of entry....WHY YOU SAY...because this is our turf,this is where we work,we are the people who "also" make it safe,we participate in its function,we have been through more security screenings than a bull can ****e....are there a few out there who have "other" motives .....for sure,our job is also to weed out these individuals,but it is not our primary job....

A major problem with security,is the animosity we have(guilty as charged) between the ranks,the sooner that takes a hike the better we will be,but there are numerous accounts of plain and simple "herarsement" of flight crews.... I have been in "social" situations and listened to these morons boast of "screwing" crews......just love to hear that ****e mate...hey ,every 6 months my quack sticks his finger up my tailpipe.....I dont give a rats,because they reckon its good for me,and theres a reason...when these security rats stick their fingers up my tailpipe....now thats a whole different story.......... PB

[stiffwing]

Veruka
5 room changes in a 48 hour slip...???
I know I would have been "fatigued", not just testy, after that.
I mean , there is precedence for that isn't there ?(PHNL)
Or at least amongst the techies, there is.

[Veruka Salt]

Yep, 5 room changes in one slip.

Best part is that the company was forced to change hotels recently due to crew complaints regarding construction noise. In fact, I'm pretty sure they've changed hotels several times recently, but as soon as the complaints from crew cease, the company cunningly returns crew to the original hotel.

Unreal, hey?

[lowerlobe]

Chimbu…. ok let’s look at your questions one at a time.

1:Why is passenger screening not being carried out on London trains.
The short answer is money and time but if there are more attacks then that will probably happen but if they were to be implemented then the train drivers would have to be checked as well just like everyone else. Though, I fail to see why asking that tech crew remove their shoes at security has any relevance to security at London underground stations.

2: if 99.99% of pilots are not a security issue why waste resources searching them when the .00001% who may be would not get past the type of security check that MA indicates above...a database screening for the correct crewmembers?
It would only take one tech crew to create a disaster just as it would only take one pax to do the same so unfortunately that is why we have security. As far as MA’s suggestion goes ,it does nothing to stop someone who has flown for years, is well known by a lot of crew but for whatever reason is converted to another religion and is convinced that he is doing the right thing by his new god to make an example of the attacks on his faith. You may or may not pick up his change of ideas but unless he starts attending a public place of worship that is known to attract terrorists or he associates with known terrorists you probably would not. This does not just apply to tech crew but cabin crew,pax and other airport employees as well .

3: You'll be happy to undergo a strip/body cavity search?
What has that to do with asking crew to remove their shoes????????????
There are security machines that are a lot more effective than the ones that are currently used in Australia. However because our airports are owned by a bank money is the main issue here and unless there is another attack they will probably not spend that money. If you look at airports in other less affluent countries then they will probably never spend the money on new technology or train people to use them.So removing shoes and similar is the alternative.

4: 99.9999999% of people would not transport explosives in such a way but by you logic we should still be searched.
At the risk of being repetitive it only takes one person to create havoc. Are you suggesting we only search one in ten people?
As I said are we going to have security or not?

5: It would be interesting to see how you would react if you were searched in this manner every time you enter your workspace.

This is the one question that amazes me…Chimbu; do you think tech crew are the only group of people that are checked when going to work? Instead of grumbling next time you are taking off your belt and shoes look around and see how many other people are doing exactly the same thing and that a lot of them are wearing uniforms as well.
I am in exactly the same boat as you as is everyone else that I work with. It is time consuming and repetitive but if you look at the basic purpose then I am happy to go along with it because I want to do my job, get home safely and enjoy the rest of my natural life and not have it end prematurely.
The problem with a lot of people is that they have short-term memories. If there were an attack last week, no one would be arguing.

PA Boy..No not at all.I don't group every pilot like that,although there are small numbers of people in everygroup within society that spend an inordinate amount of time in front of mirrors....

[pakeha-boy]

lowerlobe...great reading,well said and point taken....now.. if you will ,address my issue pertaining to the "fraternaty" of induviduals at airports who are never screened????..the problem does not exist at the "front gates" it exists at the "back gates"....... please dont tell me it doesnt exist.......the floor is yours...PB

[lowerlobe]

PA Boy,
Yeah, I know exactly what you mean and with someplaces it is like fort knox at the front with the back gate wide open.

I agree totally that there are openings so big you could drive a mack truck through and it is not acceptable.If it is good enough for one person to be screened then it is not only good enough but just as critical for everyone to be screened.

I think there should be a security team watching the loading and sealing of catering trucks before they leave the catering centers and the drivers go through a process not only before they enter the catering center but when they enter the sterile area of an airport as well.This should apply to engineers as well as cargo personel and to people bringing newspapers to the papershop.

As you mentioned no one should be able to enter (or leave for that matter if you are concerned about other matters such as drugs and theft) a sterile area without screening.The main problem is I believe Money and that is what is behind Max's suggestion to relax screening of frequent flyers.Fixing the problem in Australia is one thing but ensuring it is done in other countries will be a nightmare

[pakeha-boy]

yeah mate!..in the "perfect "world that would most certainly be the avenue to take.....problem is we are far from the "perfect" world.....and so the reality of the situaton is that we spend huge amounts of money and time in the wrong areas.

I take exception to the fact that frequent fliers should have priortiy over airline staff,the argument stands that they pay our wages...for sure,but if we are not there to do the job,it now becomes a moot point....

I compare airline security to airline crashes,we look for zero tolerance but the odds of acheiveing that are unrealistic.....so ...spend the money ,time and resources in areas where you are "most likely" to find and have your problems.....not at aviation personal who have been checked checked and rechecked,(that is not to say they shouldnt be screened)

We are running a fine line,and if I were a betting man:} ....I,d put money on it that the "next" aviation drama will not come from "at the roots" aviation personal.....but from sources far outside the industry. .....PB

[Roadrunner]

Of course none of it makes sense due to the fact that the beurocrats are making the decisions.

It s^*#s me to death, the whole fiasco.
We are made to take our shoes of in Japan if the dinger goes off. No use complaining as you just get blank stares.

As I have had my bags broken into twice on my way to Japan via Sydney (QF 21) I would like to see Qantas get real about the thieving of personal belongings. The job is done I am sure during the transport of the checked through baggage from Domestic to International. Well away from the cameras in the back of a van no doubt.

Qantas management say, "All security issues are taken very seriously at Qantas." a quote from an article re the shoe affair in Manila.

If this is the case then management should take the the thieving issue way more seriously.

If those thieving sons of you know what's can get into your bags and steal stuff then they are equally able to plant what ever they want in return.

THIS, is a big security issue which has been ignored by airlines and government for far too long.

I remember back in the 80's when they had a bunch of thieves red handed at TAA, invisible powder on the fingers and all, the snatchers ( no pun intended) were protected by the union and nothing happened.

What a crock.

:ugh:

[Chimbu chuckles]

I never grumble at security...I have it down to a fine art...and my shoes are of the non laces variety for that reason...however how can the current security screening, that you think is so wonderfull, have ANY impact on. As far as MA’s suggestion goes ,it does nothing to stop someone who has flown for years, is well known by a lot of crew but for whatever reason is converted to another religion and is convinced that he is doing the right thing by his new god to make an example of the attacks on his faith.

The answer is it cannot...NO airport screening can. So as mentioned above aircrew screening as it is currently practiced is a waste of resources.

Resources that could be better spent on the type of security lapses being perpetrated by baggage handlers....remind me again how many individuals in this area have been found to have connections with terrorist organisations?

I can think of one at Sydney and one at Heathrow just in the last 6 mths. 2 in 6 mths as opposed to how many tech/cabin crew members ever? ZERO!:ugh:

But now we are seeing the Yanks and MMW suggesting that frequent fliers can get the equivalent of an ASIC card and be fast tracked past all the BS.

But aircrew who already have an ASIC card must be subjected to what is patently ineffective screening.:ugh:

How many frequent fliers are already connected to terrorist groups but have no record and have yet to be called to action...how long would it take one to qualify for the pax 'ASIC'?

And even if a handfull of these nutters makes it on board with evil intent what are they going to do to defeat several hundred passengers fighting for their lives and the cockpit security door?

If all they want to do is blow something up they can do so with a stinger missile from outside the airfield boundary...clean and easy.

[J430]

Chimbu,

I usually relate to your down to earth and well thought out comments, and you have just raised a point which I always argue amongst friends.

I paid my $200 and have an ASIC, never been nabbed for anything more than a speeding ticket, and because of this I am clean, 100% safe.......or am I???? What stops me now taking on a sympathetic view to some terrorist group, joining up, and then finding some alternate uses for my $200 piece of red plastic with my face on it. (the pic makes me look like one tho:eek: ).

The problem is even the bad people were once good. Sure its going to stop know individuals, but it leaves a big hole for the new recruits to slip through.

We should all think of this, because, an ASIC wearing exempt person could one day try to sneek something through, or give it to the real terrorist after he made it through the checks at the gate.

I dont know there is a perfect solution:ugh:

Another question........who checks the security guys??:ooh:

Cheers J:ok:

[Chimbu chuckles]

The inescapable point is that the 'turned' pilot does not need to secret anything on board with him...he has no need to convince anyone to open the door to gain access to the cockpit by slashing throats...he has no need to secret bomb making materials on board...why would he bother secreting similar items to another individual?

I don't accept the 'pilots family held hostage' theory either...if they are nasty enough to hijack an aircraft and kill several hundred or thousand innocents does anyone seriously think they would release your family to identify them after you have helped them?

Baggage being broken into and items stolen is common...how hard would it be to put an explosive device into someones baggage set to a timer?

I have sat in the crew bus at the gate of the crew/airside workers screening points at LHR watching vehicles not being checked thoroughly...lets face it how do you thoroughly check a truck full of catering/aircraft spares or sundry 100s of other items that are needed daily airside to keep the aircraft flying?

It is rather hillarious though to watch the security staff walk around the truck rather like we do when doing a walk around and then pour the drivers coffee on the ground and confiscate his lunch while he is sending his shoes through the xray before allowing him to continue on his way.

Gives me a warm feeling knowing how much safer I am as a result of that. How much semtex can be hidden inside a spare tyre?:ugh:

The threat is not the pax so much and it definately isn't the aircrew...but I can accept that a layered defence necesitates pax screening...aircrew screening at the airport cannot achieve what is desired better than background checks done by Intelligence/Aviation authorities and employers contributing to a workplace database system.

The biggest security threat is that an airport like Sydney or Heathrow is INDEFENSEABLE. The only way to guarantee nothing will be secreted on board an aircraft is to close the facility down and build a housing estate on it.

Airport authorities/owners, Catering companies, SECURITY companies etc all use min wage workers who more often than not come from the very ethnic/religous backgrounds that are giving us our current drama....individuals that one would suspect have far more exposure to being programed with the desire to do 'the west' harm...and a few have already been caught.

Spend the money where it will have a chance of making a difference. As it stands airport departure terminal security is mostly poiltical smoke and mirrors.

[Roadrunner]

Yes, as we know it's all window dressing to make the public feel all warm and cozy inside. Also, of course, the decision makers have made a decision, jobs right.
I was in a bus at Narita going through the check point and saw a car beside me having it's boot checked. Inside was a fully covered set of golf sticks which were promptly ignored and the thumbs up given without even a cursory inspection.
No time of course, got to keep the traffic movin on.
Looks like Narita is safe and that's all that matters, appearances.
Go to KIX and drive straight through, no security there.

The other big joke of course is our ID cards. We all know how hard it is to get one of those and they don't even look carefully at them anyway. God help you if you lose one though....
The photo on mine is dark and really not acceptable. Just another example that it's all a matter of being seen to be security conscious.

Proper security is way too costly and inconvenient, as so may have said.

Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy, not. It's all about wrong place wrong time, good luck..

[Kanga767]

OK, So what is the point of obtaining an ASIC then?

K

[noip]

YES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !


EXACTy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


n


sigh.

[Unhinged]

OK, So what is the point of obtaining an ASIC then?
K
There's a point ???

[lowerlobe]

"Originally Posted by Kanga767
OK, So what is the point of obtaining an ASIC then?"
Well,it provides employment and it also provides ..mmmm employment and oh yeah it makes our politicians and public servants look as though they are doing something .
Also there are a lot of people who work in the game who like to wear one when they going to work and when they have a drink in the bar at the Holiday Inn opposite QCC after work before heading home ...sort of a club I suppose

[Lord Snot]

We all know (or we should know) that they have to security-check the pilots in case they're under duress and/or being coerced into carrying prohibited items through security for the terrorist. The intended target aircraft does not necessarily have to be the same flight the pilot is planning to operate. No one really suspects the pilot is going to freak out and go jihadi..... Why is that simple fact so hard for some people to grasp?

As for the realities of kidnapping, the average person would, I believe, take the hyjacker at his word rather than watch him slice his kid's throat and move onto the next candidate but that's just my opinion.

This out-weighs any concerns about the uninspiring image of the professional pilot who is about to fly Joe Sixpack, his wife and their 3 brats across the Pacific or wherever, being subjected to the same suspicions and indignities as the punters.

Sorry but ranting on about ASICs or crash-axes is just plain ignorant.

The issue of the cleaners, baggage-snatchers and camel-suit-wearers getting airside without going through security (if, indeed, it happens) is the real issue.

The best way to deal with the security Police Academy rejects is to be nice if they're nice or ignore them if they're not. Or just hold up the queue as much as you can.

PS Buster, I'd hate to see them slip-ons flying off ya feet in an accident/incident particularly if you end up having to run away bravely across the tarmac as she burns to the ground behind you...!!

You should wear DMs like I do. With cargo pockets on the pant legs...:D

[pakeha-boy]

bottom line....."No player is bigger than the Game"

[DutchRoll]

No, but the more I read & hear about this 'incident', the more I believe this has been a complete and utter beat-up by the Manila authorities playing some oneupmanship games and telling some little fibs, and the media who were short of real news at the time.

And the way that Qantas management have apparently run from the other end of the field to sink the boot in is disgraceful, but not unexpected. And they expect us to put in extra effort to save on fuel costs.

[Lord Snot]

I believe this has been a complete and utter beat-up by the Manila authorities Noo Sirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.....

Weee would not everrr do that, Sirrrrrrrrrr...... Very sorry, Sirrrrrr... Ma'am.... Sirrrrrrr......

:ugh:

[*Lancer*]

WRT Manila, as Veruka has already pointed out, perhaps language difficulties, misunderstandings, and the media inflated the incident into something it wasn't. Stiffwing's implication that the Capt's reputation had anything to do with it is just baseless, ignorant speculation.

Regardless, clearly some of us are wearing thin with airport security. Exactly what prevents the SNP police academy dropout from being coerced into overlooking Terry Wrist's 'extra special laptop' in the first place? Why does Terry Wrist need prohibited items anyway? How about those metal forks? Wine bottles? Wooden stakes? Ceramic knives? Pens? Hands?

It's just about where the line is drawn really, and including ourselves within that line sometimes feels ridiculous.

PS - how many of you have ever been 'randomly selected' for the bomb residue search? Even when its not in view of passengers. :D onya security!

[lowerlobe]

Thats right Chimbu,Lord Snot.Lancer and all other tech crew that believe they are above the rest of society and that no tech crew might or would ever do anything wrong...

"PS - how many of you have ever been 'randomly selected' for the bomb residue search? Even when its not in view of passengers. onya security!"

Our intelligence network ( now there is a contradiction in terms ) will pick up any threat and there will be no need for any crew to go through security.

The whole idea is to remove the number of holes in our swiss cheese concept not drill more of them.But heck you guys are above all that and are pillars of society and there is no tech crew from any airline that has not done something wrong even unintentionally.

While you are up there ordering weak black tea with lemon ..maybe,just maybe one of your other crew might have an idea to do something that you would not consider.When the investigative authorities picking up the pieces have decided it was an IED ,they would never believe that it was a tech crew that did it because you guys are perfect and beyond suspicion

[Veruka Salt]

As one of your much loathed "techies" (just call me a Pilot, okay?), I can do a lot of damage by virtue of having an aeroplane in my hands. Once the aircraft is under power, it is completely at my disposal, regardless of how many security tests I've been through on the day. And neither you nor security can stop me.
Xray screening and explosive residue tests of "techies" is all about public posturing and nothing to do with mitigating risk to aircraft and passengers. That's what we "techies" are objecting to.:ugh:
Your statements are irrelevant to the Manila case because the "techies" did not refuse to remove their shoes, they simply questioned the manner in which it was to be undertaken.:= := That is a small but subtle difference which was lost on the airport staff. Typical of the "face saving" commonly seen in certain cultures.:rolleyes:

[B A Lert]

they simply questioned the manner in which it was to be undertaken.

Since when were "Pilots" - note the capital P - the arbiter of how best to conduct security checks? It's all very well to rave and rant about the dangerous weapon they have in their hands when operating an aircraft but if the law requires a security check, then so be it. No one has yet objectively, logically or rationally explained exactly why Pilots should be exempt from security checks, or exempt from having to remove their shoes. What an invasion of their ego this must be, especially when shoes must be removed in front of others? Isn't it incumbent on all crew to be seen to be doing the right thing? How many other rules/regs are you required to comply with even though you may personally disagree? Don't just pick on shoe removal!

While pilots think they can do what they like when operating an aircraft, so too can cabin crew or even the average passenger. Decompression, and the catastrophe that would follow such, comes to mind.

[Wingspar]

BA,


It's called CAR 224;

(3) The pilot in command shall have final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft while
he or she is in command and for the maintenance of discipline by all persons on board.

It's the lawwwwwwwww!

[B A Lert]

Hey Spar! You've taken me outta context. I know about authority etc but I wasn't raising that, nor were others on this thread. Read all before and you'll understand what I am saying.:ok:

[Veruka Salt]

B A Lert,
Thanks for the capital 'P'. The word is a proper noun after all.:hmm: Anyway . . .
Who said Pilots should be exempt from security checks? The crew in question didn't. . . :ok:
There was no suggestion that egos were threatened by having to remove shoes in front of passengers. The Captain was well within his rights to suggest he have his shoes removed elsewhere if he felt that his responsibilities under the CARs would be best fulfilled by doing so. Whether you or I agree with that is irrelevant! The law empowers and obliges him to make such calls!

[Wingspar]

BA,

Sorry if I did.

This is a point of contention that some may feel justified in taking further.
Many of the functions that the PIC is legally responsible for is delegated to others, ie loading, security etc. Nonetheless the PIC is still held responsible. This point is not well known and is the basis for many problems encountered in day to day ops.
I for one could not give a brass razoo about the checks but I can understand if others don't agree.
I'm speaking generally and not with reference to the Manila case.:)

[lowerlobe]

Veruka,
2 points.
Firstly, I don’t loathe Techies or pilots .I just don’t understand the ego’s that cause these debates. In 30 years of flying I have met and know a lot of techies and like cabin crew and every other cross section of society there are people within those groups who’s ego prevents them from a rational debate.

Secondly, I think you are missing the point that I made. No one is arguing that you are in control of an aircraft, that is your job. However as I have tried to make clear pilots are not immune to factors that affect every other human being on the planet. If it is possible for any person to have a moment in their life that makes them change perspective and religious beliefs then that can happen to pilots.

I don’t particularly want to describe specific possibilities in regard s to improvised weapons on the aircraft because this is a public forum. However, if one pilot on a 3 or more crew operation wants to cause the sort of disaster that we have witnessed before then the chance of surprising 2 other crew totally is problematic at best and unlikely. He/she will not be able to physically bring the aircraft down without the other 2 noticing unless they are in on the deal, which again would be possible but unlikely.

However, if they can bring an IED onto the aircraft because there are no security checks carried out on tech crew or even a weapon that would enable them to disable or remove the threat from the other pilots then that fixes the problem for them. To say they could do that with a crash axe is because first they would have to gain access to it without the other pilots noticing it and then have you ever used a heavy blunt instrument such as the crash axe in a confined small area and as I said surprising one pilot is possible but 2 or more…I doubt it.

If there is a possibility of a situation arising then we should not relax the current situation but look at and fix the other problems that exist that we all know about. That reality is a political and financial one but to create another opening for any terrorist is wrong.

[Shot Nancy]

What is a "techie"?