Britain's Pilots Call For Seven New Security Steps

[MaxRange120]

It does seem at last that there may be some movement to resolve this shambles.The details below are from the press and media public view section of
http://www.balpa.org.uk where further detail can be found on the development.
Not enough? Far too much? About time? What are your views .
MR120:ok:
Note to Danny I feel this is enough of a new development to be a new thread in its own right however please combine if you feel its more valid elsewhere.:ok:
NEWS from BALPA
British Airline Pilots’ Association
Monday 18th September 2006
BRITAIN’S PILOTS CALL FOR SEVEN NEW SECURITY STEPS
Britain’s pilots, unhappy at many aspects of the current security regime at airports and on aircraft, have written to Transport Minister Douglas Alexander urging him to make some major changes.
‘These changes are desperately needed to allow pilots to more easily undertake their critical safety role’ says Jim McAuslan, General Secretary of the British Airline Pilots’ Association. ‘Iif this is not done I can see UK aviation grinding to a halt’
BALPA, which has over 9,000 of Britain’s airline pilots in membership, wants the recommendations from pilots to be taken much more seriously.
In the letter to Douglas Alexander BALPA Chairman Captain Mervyn Granshaw writes: ‘We operate in a unique environment and have long been regarded and respected as the eyes and ears of the industry and with whom co-operation has proven repeatedly to be a winning formula.
‘But it doesn’t feel that way and, as a group of professionals, we find ourselves being seen as part of the problem and not part of the cure.’
The letter expresses frustration that problems at national level are worsened by different interpretations of security measures by local airport security staff. ‘So the daily routine of a professional pilot becomes frustrating and we are distracted away from our primary safety role as we navigate a regime that frankly gives security a bad name.’
‘Right now BALPA wants to agree a list of items that pilots can carry onto their aircraft which they need to do their job and which are being removed from them as they pass through security. Flying licences, log books, laptops and even contact lens cleaner have been taken from them and in some instances lost.’
Reflecting on the recent developments and looking slightly further ahead, BALPA also wishes to address the following six issues:
• Develop a central international biometric security pass system for all pilots so that pilots can be identified and travel through airports more easily.
• Speed up passenger profiling and new technology such as body scanners, semi-automatic x-ray machines and bottle scanners for essential medicine, and require all airport operators to have a dedicated fast track channel for pilots.
• Insist on the application of a consistent security regime getting rid of anomalies between airports.
• Require all airport operators to establish an operational task group so that employee representatives can meet security directors face to face and iron out problems.
• Review the standards of recruitment and training of security staff. Give them decent conditions and more power to exercise discretion.
• Accelerate the fitment of hardened cockpit doors for cargo aircraft. Cargo aircraft often carry non-security-cleared personnel. Both types of aircraft can be weapons of mass destruction. In addition, freight profiling to determine which cargo needs particularly careful screening.
Finally BALPA urges the Government to help more with the cost of these measures. Too much of the cost of security is borne by the industry.
Says Captain Mervyn Granshaw, Chairman of BALPA: ‘We want to work with the Government but too many pilots feel that the system is conspiring to make their jobs more difficult rather than improving security.
‘Some of the measures we are calling for assist and enhance the security of passengers directly. Others assist us, as the pilots, to do our job and not be burdened by unnecessary and often inconsistent applications. This is not about special pleading; it is about recognising that we are in a different position. And of course, if we cannot do our jobs properly, that puts passengers at risk too.

[HZ123]

BALPA want to stick to 'pay and allowances'. The security industry has thousands of well meaning experts and the government far to many committees pontificating about these very subjects. As we all know in this industry security costs and the payback is questionable. If cargo is carrying all sorts of people why does the captain not insist that they are screened as is their baggage.

[Hand Solo]

Do you think we should X-ray their thoughts then HZ?

[Brakes...beer]

HZ123
Do you mean that, in your opinion, BALPA should stick to pay and allowances? If so, I think most of its members would disagree with you: this is precisely the sort of intelligent, well-informed contribution to a debate we should expect from a Pilots' Association, not just a union.
I'm not sure either that the payback from security is questionable - do you mean we shouldn't bother with it at all?
Finally, just because non-crew on cargo aircraft do not have weapons doesn't mean that they cannot take over the aircraft; hence the need for a lockable flight deck door.

[QFIhawkman]

Hmm..... BALPA advising others on airport security?

Why not let the security managers advise BALPA members on how to fly an aircraft?

BALPA seem to be out for one thing here, making their members' working day a bit easier. Now I'm all fot that, but let's let security experts run the security side of things, and let BALPA worry about flying.

They are experts in their own fields for a good reason. Sure there are problems at the moment, but it will settle down.

[Hand Solo]

I'm afraid that those of us who see this 'security' on a daily basis may beg to differ. There are glaring deficiencies in UK aviation security which are reported by BALPA members but not acted upon. Instead the authorities prefer to concentrate on cosmetic measures, like making us take our shoes off before we go to work or revoking our airside passes if we incorrectly filed a VAT return 20 years ago. Meanwhile the lillywhite terror suspects continue to work airside at our airports.:rolleyes:

[green granite]

Who checks the security checkers? How good are the security vetting proceedures before a person is employed?

[J.O.]

So, HZ123 and QFIhawkman, let me ask you this ...

Are you saying that if your next door neighbour decided to take it upon himself to engage in activities that would put a considerable dent in your, or any other person's quality of life, that you would be okay with that? That is what you are saying in response to BALPA's letter to the Minister. :ugh:

Pilots are stakeholders in every aspect of the business, especially when it comes to security. They jump through many hoops to obtain a security pass which permits them to access their workplace, yet on the way to said workplace, they are treated like little more than suspects in a crime they have never committed. They understand the importance of an effective security system, but they certainly don't see the present one as very effective. Window dressing would be a more accurate assessment.

Good on you BALPA. Every other pilot union and association should copy your letter and send it to the responsible regulators in their country. :ok:

[NWT]

So BALPA wish to have the pilots treated differently to everyone else when going to work....lets make them feel even more important.....what about the staff that have to go through the security joke 4 or 5 times every day? Should concentrate security where it really maters, one sensible rule for all staff

[ornithopter]

QFIhawkman - because they are getting it WRONG! If we were burying aircraft into hills all the time and the security guys had a fix - then we should listen to them. Blind faith in the "security experts" will not help here. Intelligent security measures will. That's what is required and what BALPA are calling for, simple as that.

[Rainboe]

The current security procedures desperately need overhauling and replanning. To confiscate my 3 sticks of Orbit chewing gum and nail clippers, ban pilots from taking contact lens fluid and toothpaste with them, when they are going to be controlling an aeroplane full of people, and up to 150 tons of jet fuel at 600 mph is a major misdirection of security resources. Target security where it's needed, but it is not needed there- making a pilot remove his shoes and belt and undo his trousers achieves nothing apart from allowing the security people to publicly demonstrate that nobody is immune from their 'control'.

I concede there may be problems with foreign recruited cabin staff who don't go through the same Disclosure checks and whose backgrounds may not be fully appreciated. I'm afraid for airport or airline staff, without a long history and full knowledge of their background, such as you get with Engineers with long service, I don't see how security can be significantly relaxed.

[ROSCO328]

Balpa has my vote 100% !! :D :ok:

[Hand Solo]

So BALPA wish to have the pilots treated differently to everyone else when going to work....lets make them feel even more important.....what about the staff that have to go through the security joke 4 or 5 times every day?

Until such time when everyone else going to work is intending to take control of an aircraft then yes, pilots should be treated differently.

[J.O.]

Until such time when everyone else going to work is intending to take control of an aircraft then yes, pilots should be treated differently.

Which completely misses the point that pilots are but two to four individuals who will have access to the aircraft and who could also put the safety of that aircraft in jeopardy in many ways other than flying it into the ground. Unfortunately, not all of those individuals are presently being screened to the level that most pilots would like. Instead, the system focusses on dressing windows for the paying pax.

[NutLoose]

Ahh the lunatics are taking over the asylum.. Your statement is so crass

"Until such time when everyone else going to work is intending to take control of an aircraft then yes, pilots should be treated differently".

You are a pilot simply that, you are no less important in the chain of things than anyone else, from the cleaners, to ATC, to the Engineers that ensure the thing gets you there safely.... These people have to put up with security checks many, many more times a day just to try and function, you if you are on long haul have to suffer it what? twice a day?........

"I am a Pilot let me" through does not do anything to enhance safety, it simply puts holes in it... you can never make anywhere 100% fool proof, but have a thought to the rest of the long suffering people involved, including the likes of the security who having had this system forced upon them are just trying to do the best they can..... Sometimes some of the comments the likes of that beggar belief....................... who next? after all you have already started the ball rolling "I am an Engineer let me through", "I am a Cleaner let me through"........... Perhaps the next Bomb Happy Chappy should Buy an Ex Uniform off Ebay and walk through whilst making it clear he is a Pilot?

I can see many a Glaring faults where I work, you do not need to even get airborne to make a big dent in the 9 o'clock news, and ways you could cause more death and destruction involving Aircraft, none of which I intend too discuss


I totally agree with the first post on here, The only thing I can say though is whilst a central international biometric security pass system may sound a good idea, nothing is forger proof and once that has been cracked and it will........ you now have a system that works in their favour, not yours....
Also, you may be able to guarantee the safety and checks on such cards being issued in the UK, Europe and the USA etc, but what of some of the third world countries where you might be able to get one for a wad of cash? or are you then going to have a 2 tier system? that then negates one of the advantages of having it.

A similar thing is the National ID Card.. I carried an ID card in the Military, but the moment a single card is forged the whole misthought system collapses, instead of protecting us it protects the people you are seeking.
On that subject the London Underground Bombers would also of been elligable for a National ID so that sort of just makes the point, that it can be used to protect both sides of the fence.

[Bernoulli]

Well done BALPA. Every time I have to take off my shoes on the way to the jet I just think how bl**dy stupid this particular measure is. What are they looking for? Something that'll help me force my way into the cockpit of the 767 and take control? I've asked the security folks what it is exactly they're looking for and they just don't know. It's done "because the DfT says we have to" said the bloke ignoring the picture of my dangerous footware.

Aaaaaggggghhhhh! Aren't we supposed to be applying our collective intelligence to this. What happened to the eminently sensible idea of profiling? Put the money, intelligence and manpower where it could make a real contribution to security... not paying poor souls to watch my big toe sticking through the end of my sock!:*

[ornithopter]

NutLoose - you do have a point that others have to go through security, what you miss is that we have different jobs that mean we are different risks. A cleaner could plant a bomb - so make sure they don't have one. A pilot DOESN'T NEED a bomb to cause mass distruction - only themselves. If you take away explosive toothpaste from a guy posing as a pilot, but let him continue, then you've still let him through and he will still do the damage. The key thing is not to let the person though in the first place.

You are right that ID's can be faked, and I am sure they will be and are, it still doesn't make sense to take away chewing gum and EMPTY bottles of water. Sure we need to go through security, but we need to have some intelligent measures. If you know who I am and you are happy for me to lock myself in a flight deck, it is meaningless to search me for fluids. If you are not happy for me to lock myself into a flight deck, stop me from flying and sort it out. Same with cabin crew, cleaners, security checkers, etc etc. I'd love to see you fake a fingerprint.

[Tandemrotor]

As far as removing my shoes at security is concerned, I simply reflect that this particular 'quirk' came in after that nasty Mr Reid (the shoe bomber) tried to let one off over the ogsplosh. I imagine these two factors are related!

So every day, as I hand my shoes over to be scanned, I just thank my lucky stars, he didn't hide the exposive in his underpants!

Or even, up where the sun don't shine!:}

[J.O.]

I am obviously not the one with a nut loose. When did I, or anyone else for that matter say, "I am a pilot let me through". All we are asking for is some sense which is obviously not common.

Biometric IDs will be very hard to fake and they're not just done with fingerprints, there's an eyeprint as well. How you insert some elses eyeball into your head is beyond me. It's nothing but a fantasy from a Bond film. As for the rest of your rant, Ornithopter said enough.

[Sir Thomas]

Perhaps the next Bomb Happy Chappy should Buy an Ex Uniform off Ebay and walk through whilst making it clear he is a Pilot?


It works for the cops... People like NitWiT and nutloose really depress me. Does that make me even more dangerous? ( I also have contact lenses ooohhhh)

[NutLoose]

NutLoose - you do have a point that others have to go through security, what you miss is that we have different jobs that mean we are different risks. A pilot DOESN'T NEED a bomb to cause mass distruction - only themselves.



Your missing the point I was trying to make an engineer would not need a Bomb either.

[JediDude]

I'm not a pilot but the way I see it is if and when security screening for pilots is dropped below the level of pax then this is providing a weakness for the terrorists to take advantage of. Nobody is suggesting that the pilot is going to willingly take explosive substances aboard but you need to think outside the box, as a terrorist would. Take this example...

You arrive home to discover your family missing. There is a package with your name on it. In it is a letter instructing you to take the enclosed tube of toothpaste through security and make sure it gets to the pax in seat 5A on your next days flight. Failure to follow these instructions or attempts to alert authorities will result in the death of your family.

A bit of an extreme example but it is a situation that is perfectly possible in the current climate.

[J.O.]

Your family is dead already, whether you comply or not. And if you do comply, you will die as well.

[Ron & Edna Johns]

JediDude, what a total crock. You have been watching too much Hollywood. I really am getting tired of hearing this old chestnut being trotted out.

These criminals, if they are indeed actually out there plotting away, are not going to put the success or otherwise of their plan in the hands of an unknown entity such as a blackmailed pilot. They do not have complete control over his subsequent actions. He may comply or he may go to the cops, blowing the whole operation. That is not the way these guys work. Look at history. Look at 9/11. Look into the past and find ONE EXAMPLE of a PILOT being blackmailed as you describe. It hasn't happened because there's too much chance of the plan going pear-shaped.

In the meantime the very real risk of pilot error due to elevated stress levels has increased. This increased risk of incident/accident outweighs the reduction in risk of death by terrorism. I can't measure it but I'll put money on it. One day we will all be hanging our heads in shame. I guarantee it.

[JediDude]

These criminals, if they are indeed actually out there plotting away

What with recent events I think it's safe to say they are.

Before 9/11 I think most of us would've thought that a situation involving a sizeable number of terrorists learning to fly in the USA and then going on to seize control of 3 airliners and crashing them into buildings was "a total crock" and "too much hollywood". "Thats not the way these guys work". "Look at history", and find one example of that type of thing happening before. "there's too much chance of the plan going pear-shaped". None the less, it happened.

[Capt Pit Bull]

Jedidude,

We're not talking about security for pilots being less than passengers, we're talking about it being rather greater, but having a different shape; i.e. useful measures rather than crowd appeasing but largely ineffective time wasting that are endured at the moment.

Like J.O. says, pilots are stakeholders in the security situation. People who use the system on a day in day out basis know where the holes are and know window dressing when they see it, and have an obligion to speak out.

As for QFIhawkman.... your comments are almost laughable. If you are what your name suggests, surely if you could see glaringly obvious oversights you'd be expected to point out the same to OC Regt and OC P&SS, not just shrug your shoulders and say "they are the experts". Likewise "selection and maintenance of the aim", "economy of effort", "maintenance of morale" would suggest that seeing a lot of effort and aggravation go into inneffective measures should also draw comment.

pb

[skiesfull]

I have every sympathy with any flight crew member, who like me, objects to being treated as a suspected terrorist every time they report for duty, despite having been vetted prior to being issued with a security pass and having spent many years, flying hundreds of thousands of passengers safely and securely. However we may not like it, knee-jerk reactions will be commonplace, following every terrorist outrage or threat and being at the sharp end of airline operations, we will be witnesses of much seemingly illogical implementations in the name of enhanced security. These steps will not be locally devised but from the highest authority, i.e the Government. There are two ways to deal with it, either 'suffer-in silence' (since to voice one's objections in front of security personnel, is invite further unwanted scrutiny) or to put pressure on the relevant authorities to explain the threat and the logic of the measures introduced. The latter can come from airline management and from flight crew associations/unions.
With regard to BALPA's point of view, I am disappointed that it has taken them so long to voice their concerns and whether or not these concerns are commercially viable.
Fitting of hardened cockpit doors may not be feasible for all aircraft e.g the Boeing 747 freighter variants,as the upper deck may require considerable redesign in order to comply with any regulations that BALPA wish to be introduced. I would far prefer that all personnel who travel as passengers (animal attendants,valuable cargo guards, company personnel etc.) be thoroughly security vetted, safety equipment trained and security checked, as are passengers, than lock the crews in the cockpit. In case anyone is unsure of the redesign required, it would probably entail separate galleys and toilets and may require a flight attendant or even a sky marshall's presence.
On the face of it, BALPA seem to be stepping in because of complaints from their members rather than put forward viable alternatives to current security measures. However, some dialogue with those who have caused so much disruption and inconvenience to the flight crew community is at least a step in the right direction. In the meantime,I will resign myself to having to prove my innocence and reaffirm my commitment to flying aircraft around the world with no malice intended, before reporting for my next flight. No-one said it would be easy!!

[ornithopter]

Nutloose - I haven't missed the point, I just didn't want to list every profession or job holder that needs to cross security. Given that Engineers have knives, compressed air tools, flammable liquids etc it is even more stupid that nail clippers and bottles of water are taken from them. They are a profession where similar measures to what BALPA are talking about would help. BALPA don't speak for Engineers though - so perhaps the unions involved there should? BALPA are trying to protect our profession and the industry as a whole. While I don't agree with everything in their letter, nowhere does it say we are that we are better than anyone else or "I'm a Pilot let me through". Look at the facts of the argument, not the "them and us" which you have automatically jumped on.

JediDude - I am fed up with hearing that "no one expected 9/11". If you just let your imagination run for a bit, you can come up with loads of really nasty things that terrorists could do. For instance, flooding the Subway in New York is quite easy, as is sinking a cruise liner or burning down an office block. OK, you might not expect a given one, but if there are terrorists about who are known to want to do nasty things, you can expect something nasty to happen somewhere. However, none of this is stopped by the ridiculous security measures that some of us have to endure (such as taking off epilettes because they "contain metal thread"). We have to provide serious, intelligent security, not fantastical showings of "something being done". I'm all for good security, and well against bad security. If I get a letter from a terrorist who have held my family captive, I'm not going to work full stop. If my family are dead, there is nothing I can do but by not going to work I can perhaps stop something bigger happening. These things are from the movies, not from the real world. I'm more likely to have to put up with someone putting a gun to my head as while the screeners are looking for Evian bottles they miss the guns and bombs.

[sidtheesexist]

skiesfull - you've hit the nail on the head - we as a pilot body have two realistic options - suffer in silence (AKA bitch and moan amongst ourselves) or get active with the emails/telephone and start exerting pressure on BALPA and our respective employers, the DFT and our MPs.

As has already ben pointed out, venting one's spleen at the security staff is a complete and utter waste of time - they are merely doing their jobs and following the guidelines which have been imposed by the DFT/TRANSEC. A far more effective and productive means of letting off steam is to LOBBY and I would urge one and all to start doing so if not already so engaged!!! :ok:

[Bomber Harris]

hold your horses here. Some of you are missing what is going on. Balpa are a pilot association. Their function is to support us and represent us. I think they did a damn good job of it with this letter. I would confidently say that the letter reflects my views. As I pay Balpa to represent me, then thats all fine and dandy.

Balpa does NOT represent, cleaners, engineers or cabin crew. In fact if I were an engineer and Balpa made requests on my behalf I would be a bit upset!! This is nothing to do with pilots being more important...how could anyone be so childish as to even suggest that Balpa would write a letter on that basis.

If other groups of staff are unhappy with security arrangements then get together and do something about it. If your happy, then allow the pilots their democratic right to complain via their association which is a fit and appropriate channel to use.

If you are a pilot and a balpa member and you don't like what Balpa wrote....then tell Balpa...not Pprune!!! (well you can have a bitch here first:p ). If your not a balpa member then put your hand in your pocket and then complain to balpa. If you don't want to join balpa, then tough titty, you dont have a say.

Please bear these facts in mind when you post on this subject.

[skiesfull]

Bomber Harris:-
This topic was posted to state the letter written to Douglas Alexander, regarding security. The poster asked for Ppruners views as to whether or not it was sufficient or perhaps did not go far enough. The various posters have subsequently aired their views in a democratic manner on this topic. While I would agree with you that if it concerns BALPA's efforts regarding conditions of employment, then only fully-paid up members should express their agreement or disagreement, I do not agree that only BALPA members have the right to support or object to the above-mentioned letter, as you have stated. That is why we fight to preserve democracy and allow everyone to express their opinions. Many non-BALPA aircrew are affected by the recent security measures -all foreign aircrews are as much affected as are BALPA members, when presenting themselves to security in the U.K.
At least BALPA have started the ball rolling - I'm reluctant to support Mr. O'Leary of Ryanair, but for once he used the media to good effect.

[xxx5572]

Just read through this interesting thread and have a few questions and points to make.
Firstly i do think that a biometric profile and database for pilots would be good as is impossible to forge, i believe even facial recognition systems around can spot the difference of identical twins and thats about as close as you can get to forging an id so if that doesnt work nothing will.Together with iris scans and fingerprints you must be onto a winner..........However a system and database like this would be expensive so who would run the database and who would pay for the biometric id?? would you as pilots be prepared to pay £100 for it or would you expect your employer to pay for it which only fall onto the customer to foot the bill.
Also like many of you have said pilots are the most obvious people that can bring down an aircraft should they wish but also the least likely to do so, however there is always a level of risk and given that 9/11 had men training as pilots in order to be able to overrun an aircraft, whats to say that now there are not sleeper cells with pilots working for an airline, with a clean history so no one to suspect them.....what can you do then??? NOTHING. my point really is that we work in an environment were there will always be an element of risk no matter what measures governments or regulators introduce and if we dont feel comfortable with this then maybe your in the wrong place.
However some ideas are sensible and should be looked at more closely but like we all know, things that have been highlighted in the letter from BALPA costs money and so who will pay?? that will cause no end of arguments :sad:

[Ex Cargo Clown]

Pilots need to be screened to the same extent as pax for one very good reason, yes they may be able to crash their aircraft, but they can also carry things airside to enable pax to crash others. The same as any other airside worker.

I know there are background checks etc, but how easy is it to be a "good boy" get airside clearance and then decide you want to cause mass murder....

A completely sterile airside area is the only way to try to ensure that it stays that way.

More priority channels for all airside staff are the only way to do it, but all staff from pilots to cleaners being checked to the same standard as pax.

[ZBMAN]

Pilots need to be screened to the same extent as pax for one very good reason, yes they may be able to crash their aircraft, but they can also carry things airside to enable pax to crash others. The same as any other airside worker.

Operating aircrew ARE being treated differently than pax. The rules are clearly different. If they were the same for crew and pax, we (pilots) would not be able to do our jobs, since even our flightbags wouldn't go through security!
PLEASE PLEASE stop coming up with the scenario 'pilot forced to carry semtex airside', because this is completely beside the point. If it was such a likely scenario, then these ultra strict measures should have been implemented since the start of commercial aviation!!
If we really want improved security, blanket measures for pax and crew are not the way. We need highly trained security officers, proper explosive detectors and scaners, and increase the use of biometry. Of course this requires huge investments. Will the goverment be willing to foot the bill? Of course not! As usual WE will have to pay for what the goverment think is a serious threat to our lifes.
To sum up all this mess: The goverment thinks we are under threat, but yet the same goverment is not willing to improve airport security (other than stupid blanket measures that cause huge disruption) to protect us and therefore fails one of its primary duties. I think it is fair to call this hypocrisy.

[ornithopter]

I know there are background checks etc, but how easy is it to be a "good boy" get airside clearance and then decide you want to cause mass murder....

A completely sterile airside area is the only way to try to ensure that it stays that way.

If I want to commit mass murder, I don't need anything apart from my hands. If I did decide to do it, I wouldn't use disguised toothpaste or anything like that. I'd wait until the Captain went to the loo, lock the door and turn off the fuel controls. That's it. If I wanted to crash into a big city, I could do that too. If I want a passenger to cause mass murder, I don't need to give them anything - use your imagination and you can think up numerous ways.

The airside area isn't "completely sterile" and never will be. A can of hydraulic fluid in the face will disable you to a similar extent to a knife, so what are we to do, remove everything that could be considered even potentially damaging? Naked passengers - all strip searched - background checked - segregated from one another - blindfolded and starved. That'd work.

[ChicoChico]

Orn,
You forget that naked passenger still have hands and feet (most of em anyway) they make fine weapons - even a head butt worked for Bullet-Tooth Tony!
Non-pilots just don't get it and this forum proves it beyond doubt. The rules are set by non-pilots and nobody seems to want to say the emporer has no clothes but he is buck-naked!
What his hands!
Cheers Chico

[xxx5572]

Ok then well by what your saying it sounds to me as if your a pilot and so if we non pilots are all missing the point why not tell us what YOU personally would propose if you were given the task to bring in new security measures because of recent events and more importantly why you think this will be better for everyone.

[flyingbug]

hold your horses here. Some of you are missing what is going on. Balpa are a pilot association. Their function is to support us and represent us. I think they did a damn good job of it with this letter. I would confidently say that the letter reflects my views. As I pay Balpa to represent me, then thats all fine and dandy.

Balpa does NOT represent, cleaners, engineers or cabin crew.

If you are a pilot and a balpa member and you don't like what Balpa wrote....then tell Balpa...not Pprune!!! (well you can have a bitch here first:p ). If your not a balpa member then put your hand in your pocket and then complain to balpa. If you don't want to join balpa, then tough titty, you dont have a say.

Please bear these facts in mind when you post on this subject.


Exactly right.

In addition:
This is a flight deck forum, where a Balpa letter should be discussed between Balpa members.
The thread is (once again) almost instantly highjacked by non-aircrew with snide remarks.
To those posters - GO AWAY AND BITCH ELSEWHERE - let aircew discuss this thread on a FLIGHT DECK FORUM!!!

[ornithopter]

Ok then well by what your saying it sounds to me as if your a pilot and so if we non pilots are all missing the point why not tell us what YOU personally would propose if you were given the task to bring in new security measures because of recent events and more importantly why you think this will be better for everyone.

Well through BALPA a bunch of us have written 7 steps we think will work. That do?

Chico Chico - no I haven't, there just isn't an irony mark in English yet! Tounges can be dangerous too!! Just think of the bacteria - what happens if someone puts that in a package and sends it to the Prime Minister????

[flyingbug]

Well through BALPA a bunch of us have written 7 steps we think will work. That do?



Ornithopter,

you're right. I like the BALPA proposals and I don't feel the need to justify them to non-pilots. Balpa is our association, representing us alone.

[overstress]

I like the proposals too. I agree totally with those who say non-pilots don't get it.

**Controversial opinion alert**

There should be no need for pilot security screening at the airport at all

We pilots, are, like it or not, in charge of security on the flight.

I have my leatherman taken off me - no worries, there is equipment on the flight deck (in which I am locked and can deny access to all others) with which I can do more damage to a person than with a pocket knife.

9/11 proved that the access to the flight deck is the holy grail.

To the poster who queried why pilots should be treated differently: guess what: We are the only employment group (apologies to f/e's) who are allowed in the flight deck in flight

It gets very exasperating here on PPRuNe sometimes. :ugh:

[On-MarkBob]

Since there are now many more security staff than pilots, statistically there is a far greater risk that a breach of security is going to be from within the security staff themselves. None of whom have the track record in this industry than I, or many of us, do! What on earth gives these people the right to question me and others in my profession? Most of these people have been recently dragged in off the street to swell the numbers of security personnel in a panic attempt by politicians to convince us they are doing something about the terrorist problem. What makes them better than I? I would like to know.
I have serious doubts about the inteligence of some of these people and the people in charge of them who have acted in such an appalling way toward properly trained and employed aircrew, pilots particularly. As it has been said time and again, we don't need a bomb in our shoes to down the aircraft. If these people, calling themselves security, are so dim that they can't see that, then frankly we have the wrong people doing their job. What we need is some intelligence shown, then maybe we can believe that it won't be so easy to outsmart the terrorist!

"We're only following orders" was the comment I got the other day.
"That's what they all said at Nurnberg" I said.
"Are you calling us a bunch of Nazis?"
"Sometimes you have to question what you are being told to do, otherwise if the cap fits... and all that!!"

[bushbolox]

The fastest way to get things changed is to join the muscicians union. They can now bring thir instruments on board. Quite right too, it wouldnt be a proper disaster without a violinist playing as the plane plummets earthward after the captain has detonated his toothpaste and chutney bomb, using the on board torch as an igniton source and the axe to open the chutney. The autopsy may also show severe lacerations from a pair of tweezers as the copilot coerced the captain in to this dreadful act. Cut to a sky news anchor transplanted to the wreckage site to run the news show from there....." AT the top of the hour well look at how this could have happened, and ask...Why didnt he just crash it ?"......."Now heres Francis with the weather."
Meanwhile back on planet earth.ie the rest of europe, leatherman wielding pilots of all (spanish)nationalities read the paper while hitching aride on a spanish carrier jumpseat to the UK with a shipment of deodrant,toothpaste, shaving foam and optrex...AKA..the DREADED NIGHTSTOP KIT. Were doomed ,doomed I tell ye.

:mad:

[Ex Cargo Clown]

If I want to commit mass murder, I don't need anything apart from my hands. If I did decide to do it, I wouldn't use disguised toothpaste or anything like that. I'd wait until the Captain went to the loo, lock the door and turn off the fuel controls. That's it. If I wanted to crash into a big city, I could do that too. If I want a passenger to cause mass murder, I don't need to give them anything - use your imagination and you can think up numerous ways.
The airside area isn't "completely sterile" and never will be. A can of hydraulic fluid in the face will disable you to a similar extent to a knife, so what are we to do, remove everything that could be considered even potentially damaging? Naked passengers - all strip searched - background checked - segregated from one another - blindfolded and starved. That'd work.

That is not the issue. As someone who doesn't really wan't to discuss this too much, what is to stop a pilot taking something airside, whatever that might be...... Pilots should be subjected to the same security for the reason of keeping airside sterile.

I'm not saying that there are terrorist pilots, I'm saying why take the risk that there might be........... Anyone in the industry can see the holes, but why take a risk ???

[BusyB]

bushbolox,

best post on the thread. Thanks:D

[Sir Thomas]

I'm not saying that there are terrorist pilots, I'm saying why take the risk that there might be........... Anyone in the industry can see the holes, but why take a risk ???

Because as someone else already pointed out, that chance is so minute that you now have a greater increase in an accidnt due to stressed and annoyed crew then you have a reduction in terrorism's chances.

Btw , are you ex cargo as in no longer actively flying, or have you moved to pax flying and go through this kafka like security hell every morning as a lot of us do? just out of interest.

ST

[Sir Thomas]

increase in an accidnt due to stressed
i must read what i type before replying, i meant a greater increase in accident possibility.

[Hobo]

I'm afraid that those of us who see this 'security' on a daily basis may beg to differ. There are glaring deficiencies in UK aviation security which are reported by BALPA members but not acted upon. Instead the authorities prefer to concentrate on cosmetic measures, ......:

Also in Australia. I visit regularly and there are glaring deficiences in several Aussie airports. The attitude seems to be "We are a long way from all of this so it doesn't really affect us." All reported to the relevant agencies, but no action.

[Desperate]

Hardly now the most accessible forum in which to discuss the draconian, and senseless, daily stupidity we are forced to endure.

Not a good time to 'close' a thread, Danny. Musicians unions have rightly won the battle to bring their valuable instruments on board. Yet still I can't carry my 'emergency' nightstop kit in my flight case.

This has gone on too long - it's time we took our own action.

[Drop and Stop]

I'd love to see you fake a fingerprint.

Fingerprint Security (http://www.dumpalink.com/media/1158832817/Mythbusters_Fingerprint_Security)

[Carnage Matey!]

So when you come along to the security scanner you'll just say "hang on a minute while I get my ballistic gel fake fingerprint out" to go with your functional fake ID. Perhaps ornithopter should have said "I'd love to see you fake a fingerprint as part of a plausible, real world security scenario".

[Drop and Stop]

The link simply shows how easy it is to fake a fingerprint scanner ....ornithopter seemed to feel that that was the answer ....its hardly foolproof if this type of thing can be foiled by a photocopy of a fingerprint ...is it?

[Ex Cargo Clown]

It doesn't matter if you are a security cleared, fingerprinted anything.

If you are afforded easy access airside, then it no longer becomes a sterile area for whoever may pick up what ever we can carry through.... Pilot or not

Everbody in the industry knows the holes and can see them. Why put a bigger one in there.

[Silverspoonaviator]

See new thread re the USA DMS, it specifically refers to pax, but I can only assume crew have the same rights as pax.

Is my lap top, a musical instrument.????

Silverspoon

[Krueger]

I read some opinions about a sterile airside, but let me give a example how easy is to corrupt that airside.
Imagine, a terrorist embarking on airplane due to Heathrow from a country where the security is a little bit more lax. He takes al the toothpaste he wants and the chutney and the Ipod detonator. Whe he arrives he leave all that on his seat. Then the cleaner comes and pick it up and then he can take that wherever he wants it, airside....

Check Six krueger....:ugh:

[ornithopter]

Ex Cargo Clown - Airside isn't sterile. No addition or removal of toothpaste will change that. Why take the chance? Well there are so many possibilities with the current status quo, that the "chances" are huge of anything. Whether pilots take liquids and gels with them will not affect that. Why do you take the chance when you go up and down stairs? Why not build everything flat? The fact of the matter is more people kill themselves falling downstairs than from explosive toothpaste, so to be honest, why not take the risk?

Fingerprint detectors are not the answer, you need more than 1 identification. Also for instance, part of the suggested fingerprint ID might be to have the fingerprint detector driver visually check your finger tip.

The facts of the matter are that if we are trusted to sit in a flightdeck, sometimes on our own, we don't need any disguised nasties to commit terrible crimes. If you trust us not to damage the aircraft when we leave it, then we should be trusted not to take nasties to give to other people. The same is true of some other groups of staff too.

[Danny]

Comes back to proper profiling. Where profiling is done properly such as for El Al, the profiler is highly trained and can make a decision within a few seconds as to whether the person being profiled needs further attention and/or searches.

Unfortunately, here in the UK the DfT have gone down the route of blanket scanning. There is no way any of the minimum wage security screeners that are employed could profile anyone. Can you imagine the "Errrm... lipstick = OK. Ummm... lip salve not look like lipstick. Urrr... lip salve look like gel. Ummm... compute... compute... compute... No gel so no lip salve. Duh!".

The argument about a sterile airside is the biggest joke amongst aircrew and any staff that work at an airport. The investment in low cost security screeners and x-ray machines is a joke and designed purely for cosmetic purposes. Those who don't work at airports see big security queues and like lambs to the slaughter think 'must be working hard those security people and so we must be safe'.

[haughtney1]

I had security try and take my steel capped shoes off me at MAN as they could be used as "deadly" weapons:hmm:
Just as well they didnt get my multi-tool/leatherman, and exploding deodorant

[Desperate]

So, according to Sky News, from November (note, not next month) we can carry liquid toiletries as long as they're in containers no bigger than 100mls.

Anyone know the specific gravity of Colgate 2 in 1 toothpast? It's only got 4.6oz/130g on the label but this new restriction only mentions capacity!

Seems pedantic, but entirely consistent with this fiasco so no real surprises.

Now, instead of clearly labelled brand names, we'll have to decant our mouthwash into un-named plastic 100ml containers. Can just hear them now at the crew security point "What is Listerine?" etc. I already have a very good reply!

A huge face-saving exercise for HMG but at least it makes life a little more bearable, albeit as daft as it ever was.