Wideroe Pilot Quits due to security checkpoint hassles

[DA50driver]

http://www.vg.no/pub/vgart.hbs?artid=169919
This is from a Norwegian newspaper. Roughly translated it says that a Wideroe (Part of SAS I think, they fly Dash 8's) pilot quit his job because he is sick of being treated as a terrorist every time he goes through the security screening.
I suggest we set up a fund to help the guy out, and to help out others who may "loose it".
There is also a reference to a Wideroe pilot who cancelled his flight because he was too upset to fly after arguing with a security guard about access to a crew room.
There are some very nice and courteous screeners around. But there are also some boneheads like the guy in Brussels that wanted me to send my billfold through the x-ray machine. I told him he could look at it all he wanted, but I would not give up possession of it. If it goes through and I get held up by a screener, good-bye license and money.
I think it is time that we all stand up and say "enough"! Let's brainstorm and come up with a solution to this problem together.
Any ideas?
I'll try to call from Guantanamo

[flufdriver]

I support action to bring some sense to this whole security pretense!!

1.) We need unity on this matter (as on so many others)
2.) First step is to insist that every secuity screener has to go through the same process every time they want to pass through the checkpoint, just like all of us have to. That means if they go on a break or come back whatever! if they have to go from one side to the other they have to meet the conditions as we have to!
3.) Second every Law enforcement officer (Cop) has to meet the same conditions, who says the Cop uniform cannot be fake or stolen? and they cannot have their fire-arms, handcuffs, Pepperspray etc. back until they leave the sterile area.

As it is right now these folks consider themselves so high and mighty that they can set of all the bells and whistles and no-one lifts an eyebrow!(except of course the dumb flight-crews.

I believe this would be a good way to demonstrate what we have to tolerate day in day out.

fluf

[Juud]

According to the Norland newspaper, the CEOs of SAS, Widerøe and Norwegian have written the Norwegian Aviation Administration to express their concern.
"Flying personnel get harassed and humiliated. They are subjected to abuse of power by airport security screeners."
We have had enough, says Widerøe boss Per Arne Watle.
Security risk
An unfortunate culture is developing among security staff at many Norwegian airports. We are worried about this development. The treatment regularly meted out to our flying personnel is watering down respect for the security system. We have many examples of a particular type of behaviour that endangers air safety. Personnel who have to prepare themselves for their flight, are being provoked and distracted.

This doesn't only happen in Norway. Both from personal experience and from reading these pages, I know that security screeners abusing their powers to harass and humiliate flying personnel is a dangerous industrywide phenomenon.

It seems that these Norwegian CEOs are breaking new ground by speaking out for common sense, by finally expressing publically and officially what all of us in the industry have known for a long time; by calling a spade a spade and saying enough is enough! :ok:

Making management of other airlines aware of what is happening in Norway and urging them to follow the Norwegian example might not be a bad idea.
I shall be writing to ours.

[Life's a Beech]

I have not come across direct provocation in UK/Europe even Norway, just bone-headed, irrational stupidity. Most ridiculous of course awas when they wouldn't let me have my flask of coffee (just filled by the handling agent in my view). The handling agent told them it was catering and they let it through :confused: That was really bizarre, let pax crew take liquids, but not if they are for themselves. Especially as I had sole control of the aircraft.

It has gone too far when a crew I knew were not allowed to take water onto a cargo aircraft. That is a flight-safety issue.

[iae2500]

Recently out of a major UK airport one of the Captains just quietly let his feelings known when after being requested to return through the scanner again and again to remove shoes and then belt etc etc then he just removed his trousers to save them the bother,,, a weeks suspension and now he is taking a case against the security due loss of earnings.

There is no doubt it is distracting and uttelry OTT, this feeling is without doubt felt amongst all flight and cabin crew where I am.
I have had security pull a bottle of water out of my bag that i just plainly forgot about and then had to endure a verbal stripping down and speaking to like a child from some jumped up johhny with a vendetta for flight deck.
Just take the bottle off me and keep your attitude for elsewhere,we are supposed to be on the same team are we not?

I for one am FED UP with it,, the system needs a reality check.

[silverhawk]

Well in UK, Balpa is chasing this, but as always progress is very slow.

I'd rather just cancel each and every flight where bone fide ID holders are treated like potential terrorrists. As always commonsense is in short commodity.

[M609]

According to the Norland newspaper, the CEOs of SAS, Widerøe and Norwegian have written the Norwegian Aviation Administration to express their concern

Correct, it's here: http://www.vg.no/pub/vgart.hbs?artid=169938

Rough translation (My spelling is generally poor!)

Avinor
Att: CEO Sverre Quale


Fornebu 17.03.2007

Regarding security screening of crew

Due to an increasing amount of reports we receive from staff, we feel that it is necessary to inform you that it appears to be a subculture emerging among security personnel at several airports in Norway
We have several examples of undesirable incidents where crew feel that they are treated as suspects or is treated in an provocative or humiliating way by security personnel in front of passengers.
We do not want do go into details in this letter, but details can be provided if required.
We are concerned about the future, as we are experiencing the situation on several airports.
Such treatment of our employees undermines the respect required for a sound security system.
We ask Avinor to take this case seriously, because the security staffs conduct has a negative effect on flight safety when crew preparing for flights get provoked and distracted.


Sincerely
Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA SASBraathens Widerøe Flyveselskap


Bjørn Kjos Ola Strand Per Arne Watle
Adm. direktør Adm. direktør Adm.direktør


Copy
Norwgian CAA
CO Heine Richardsen
Postboks 243
8001 Bodø

[llondel]

In case you thought it might get better...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6462719.stm

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis has called for airport-style screening of passengers at British railway stations to combat terrorism. [...]

So, no sharp objects on trains, you'll have to endure what the buffet car (if any) has to offer in the way of drinks and your bags will end up in Bristol (damaged) when you're in Glasgow.

[Avman]

:D A sure way of putting even more cars on the road :hmm: :ugh:

Until they decide I have to go through a security check before getting into my car that is. Who put these dumbo politicians into power? We the people of course :sad:

[Danny]

An interesting development. I just wish more airline bosses had the cojones to make a stand and speak up against the new little empires that have sprung up from the "Terror Industry".

Whilst we will concentrate on security and how it affects us as crew, the following article makes some valuable points about how it is going to be difficult for some to give up their new found powers.

Terror Porn
by John Stossel

Posted 03/07/2007 ET
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=19699

Politicians and security analysts constantly remind us that a terrorist attack is just a matter of time. Clark Kent Ervin, former inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security and author of "Open Target: Where America is Vulnerable to Attack," says we must have tougher security at stadiums, shopping malls, and even schools. "We can have deterrence measures like police patrols ... greater use of bomb-detecting dogs, and bomb sensors, other such technologies ... random bag searches," he told me. "If terrorists see that such measures are in place, they're less likely to strike."

This seemed illogical to me, and so I was delighted to discover the book "Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them." Its author, Ohio State political science professor John Mueller, points out the folly of arming shopping-mall guards: "A terrorist would say, well, if that mall has guards around it, I'll go the one that doesn't. ... If you protect one thing and you simply displace the terrorist to a different threat ... it's an exercise in futility."

Mueller also says the threat to the average American is overblown. "Your chances of being killed, at present rates, by an international terrorist outside of a war zone is something like 1 in 80,000," he says. "It's about the same as being killed by an asteroid."

But on Sept. 11, almost 3,000 people died! Mueller replies that 9/11 was not a typical terrorist attack. Terrorists were able to capture four planes, and two huge buildings collapsed. "It's a spectacular exception to what terrorists have been able to do," he said. Sure enough, since 9/11, the biggest terrorist successes have been the bombings of commuter trains in Madrid and a nightclub in Bali. The death toll from each attack was about 200 people. "Outside of war zones, the amount of destruction is maybe 200 people a year," says Mueller. "That's 200 people too many, but that's hardly an existential threat. In the United States, between 300 and 400 people die every year just from drowning in bathtubs."

He says there's a terrorism industry -- I call it the "Fear Industrial Complex" -- made up of the media, the bureaucracy, business, and politicians. "Politicians notice that when they hype the terrorist threat, people respond favorably," Mueller says.

Then the bureaucracy hypes terrorism to justify its pork.

"Terror porn" is what economist Veronique de Rugy calls it. Why "porn"? "Because porn sells, [and] terrorism sells even better," she says. "It's great for politicians. They can campaign on the fact that they are protecting us. They also can campaign on the fact that they're bringing more money to their states."

Lots of small towns do get absurd grants for homeland security. Lake County, Tenn., a rural county with only 8,000 people, got nearly $200,000 in homeland-security money.

"I don't know that terrorists will come, but I don't know they won't come," Lake County Mayor Macie Roberson told us, smiling.

At least he didn't do what Columbus, Ohio did: spend it on bulletproof vests for police dogs.

Ervin concedes that some security money is wasted, but still says we need to spend more. "It's very important to reassure the American people that our government is doing everything it can to protect them," he told me. "If we do that, we will have succeeded in denying terrorists a major victory."

No. The opposite is true. It's overreacting that would give them a victory.

Of course, terrorism is a real threat. But fear kills people, too. A University of Michigan study found that an additional 1,000 Americans died in car accidents in the three months after Sept. 11, because they were afraid to fly. We need to keep risk in perspective.

"We have had dark moments in our history, far darker moments than those we face today," says The Rand Corporation's Brian Michael Jenkins. After studying terrorism for 40 years, he likes to remind people, "We've come through wars, plagues, pandemics ... The response to terrorism cannot be diving under the kitchen table and living in a state of fear. That's exactly what the terrorists are attempting to create."


Mr. Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News' "20/20" and the author of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel -- Why Everything You Know is Wrong".

[The Sandman]

My general feeling is that the whole "security" industry that has developed (and industry is exactly what it is - a very self-interested one at that) has become parasitic upon the very host that it depends on for its survival - aviation. If it is an unwise and overaggressive parasite, it will likely strangle and eventually kill the very host it needs for its survival - or as noted above, simply branch out and seek out new industries to strangle. Terrorists, like all humans, are very capable of circumventing virtually any mass-screening process put in place. Anything made by people can be circumvented by other people. Personally I am amazed at the resilience in the general travelling public (let alone those of us that do this professionally) in enduring the ridiculous and OTT indignities to which they are subjected daily.

[Self Loading Freight]

Bruce Schneier, someone who has a very deep understanding of the issues and who talks a great deal of sense, calls this sort of thinking "security theatre" - stuff designed to look good and make people feel safe, but that makes no appreciable difference to the risks.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/terrorism_secur.html

He's right on every point. The actual risk to people from terrorism is tiny - less than from taking a bath, for example. Putting people through the indignities of security does not change that risk at all - if you check for liquids, then a terrorist will use solid explosives. If you lock down air travel, then they'll blow up motorway bridges at rush hour.

The best, sanest and only proportionate response is to say stuff it, and go about our lives efficiently and with dignity. Let the security services do their work, try and create a fairer world where terrorism is obviously pointless, keep 'em peeled... but putting your mouthwash in a plastic bag has got absolutely nothing to do with reality.

R

[flufdriver]

I am actually not against security at all!

But what we currently have is not security unless security is threatened by fluids in excess of 3oz and in bags larger then one quart/liter.

I contend that what we have come to call "security" is a charade devoid of intelligence or a plan.

The massive amount of scarcely trained manpower that is being deployed is nothing more then a social program with the hoped for side benefit of fooling people into believing that they are safe.

Further, the people that would be the strongest allies in containing security risks are being alienated by the agents of this security complex.

In addition, any sensible person knows that flight-crew have all the tools they need to perpetrate a terrorist act (with an aircraft) even if they had to board the aircraft completely naked.

(In my case, it would be considered a terrorist act if I appeared naked)

It is a charade to distract the public from worrying about cost of living, education, healthcare, infrastructure (roads, railways etc) social services and globalisation.

The terrorists and scaremongerers have won! I leave it up to you where you think they are domiciled!

George Orwell, is that you I see in the distance?

fluf

[TSR2]

As a regular traveller through Manchester, this is not my experience.
Without exception I have been processed by friendly and efficient security staff and the only complaints I have ever heard from fellow passengers are from a handfull of obnoxious business men who regard the security screening process as nothing more than a great inconvenience. However, I am sure there are some over officious security staff that could hinder rather than help the smooth passage through security, but I have yet to encounter one. One thing is certain that it is a far more pleasant experience passing through security in Manchester than in most European airports.
With regards to the screening of flight crews, I have a little difficulty in understanding the fundamental basis of the objections. Is it that flight crews generally think they should justifiably be treated differently to passengers or indeed do they think they are treated more strictly than passengers. Perhaps its a case of not wanting to comply with regulations or that the regulations present a barrier to the efficient performance of duties. Whatever the reasons, if it leads to confrontation it cannot be good for flight safety and that is a concern for all passengers.
I am certainly not having a go at flight crews, but simply want to understand the fundamental problems you encounter with security checks.

[411A]

Hmmm, the 'security hassles' must be a European thing.
Never a problem in the middle east or Africa, at last for myself. Asia the same.
In these locations, just a polite 'good evening, Captain'.

[Shot Nancy]

I would highly recommend the rubdown, sorry, the patdown performed by the Beijing security girls.

[BEagle]

I think that Danny summed it up perfectly.

A friend of mine, who was a captain for Virgin, ferried one of the old Classics to the desert boneyard, then flew back with his airline. Of course a pilot with a one-way ticket and no luggage except his pilot bag caused the State Security people to consider him as a high risk.... Full, heavy-handed security checking, despite his legitimate travel.

That was the final straw. Being locked into the flight deck for hours on end and let out for a pee now and again and no longer being able to chat to passengers, or invite them to visit the flight deck was bad enough. But being treated like a criminal every time he reported for work was the end - and he resigned.

As a mere business passenger, spending 15 minutes in a queue (about twice per fortnight, on average) to unpack my laptop, empty my pockets, perhaps remove shoes, belt, watch depending upon the whim of that latest stupidity emanating from DfT does become exceptionally irritating - for airline crews it must be close to intolerable.

I see from a recent CHIRP that the explanation proffered to BALPA is that the basic DfT 'regulations' are often added to or even misinterpreted by airport operators - hence the lack of standardisation. It is good to see SAS, Widerøe and Norwegian raising the issue - airline crews should most certainly not be treated like criminals every time they go to work. Personally, I also feel that airlines should treat their revenue-bringing frequent fliers a whole let better and do more for them in terms of security checks. Some German airports do this, but as far as I'm aware, no British airports do.

However, the rude, arrogant behaviour of the security person I encountered at an airport last week is currently under investigation by the airport operator. Manners cost nothing.

If the excesses of the idiots at DfT continues, I shall certainly be looking more closely at taking my car through the Channel Tunnel in future - there is only so much embuggerance which one can put up with and my patience, along with that of many colleagues, is wearing pretty thin.

It really is time that the airline unions AND CEOS stood up to the nonsense of the paranoid security industry rather more robustly and stopped the ridiculous behaviour of airport checkers; such behaviour causes irritation and frustration which is hardly conducive to safety.

[Springer1]

"With regards to the screening of flight crews, I have a little difficulty in understanding the fundamental basis of the objections"


TSR2

I have to go through security 20 times a month. How often do you think the average passenger does?

[Ron & Edna Johns]

Springer 1 and TSR2: how about trying 2 or 3 times PER DAY, 20 days a month, in some places???? Places such as Brisbane International where the briefing office is the other side of security but some genius has deemed it "not in the sterile area". So, just signing on there alone involves complete screening prior to getting to office, and then a 2nd, repeat screening when proceeding to aircraft.... Ah, but why not go straight to aircraft via THAT door there to the tarmac? Afterall, all the ground staff are doing exactly that. "NOT PERMITTED - YOU'RE FLIGHT CREW - YOU HAVE TO BE SECURITY SCREENED," is the officialdom answer. Oh, but the cleaner can proceed out directly, no problem, that's ok.....

Are people like you, TSR2, starting to hear what we are bloody-well saying?! :mad:

[gulfboy]

This "GESTAPO-like" treatment of crew (and pax) seems to be largely a "Western" thing.
CDG checkers are the rudest ones we (on our carrier) encounter. Sour-faced, ignorant power-pussies. Refuse to speak English, rather point, push and snarl. LHR crew screening is usually polite, nevertheless thorough. FRA so-so, depending who is on duty. The younger their staff, the more hassle crew gets. Taking off shoes, jackets, belts, watches, pins and name badges from shirts... the girls still "beep". Take off the underwire bra????

SIN, for example, provides sensible service with a smile. 3 am or 3 pm, doesn't matter. "Hello Captain, how was your rest? Had a nice time in Singapore?" A 30 second process.

Of course all this extra "security" bull...t, costs crew time. WE do get picked up from the hotels earlier and earlier, reducing rest time further and further.
"To ensure the AC will leave on time".
Companies don't (usually) care beacause they just adjust "rest" times.
Politicians and officials don't care because they probably get whisked through VIP channels.
We as crew are a soft target for the whims of "Security" personnell because we can't complain to anyone. They fill their quotas for feeling up people.

Incidently, WHY so often exactly those kind of people (thugs) working IN security, that you are trying to keep AWAY from sensitive areas or your home??? ;-)

[OldChinaHand]

On my world-wide travels I pass through security screening as Crew and from time to time as pax. There is NO DOUBT but I am treated differently when attired in my Uniform. My carry on luggage is never searched as a pax, it is regularly searched as a Pilot, even though it is the very same bag with the very same contents.

The route structure I work on does not extend to the US, but the worst BS I have encountered is in Europe. Its nothing short of ridiculous, Scanning, sniffing, swab and frisking. Its an industry that has blossomed on fear, the unknown and mass speculation.

It would be an interesting exercise to discover the personalities pocketing the profits from this "mega, ever expanding monster".

OCH

[RoyHudd]

Just operated out of the USA back to the UK, with NO SECURITY CHECKS whatsoever! Why? Because TSA had gone home. The departure had been delayed until the wee small hours, and as a result we were free to go to work with no removal of trouser belt, shoes, laptop, examination of bag and confiscation of water. Explain that if you will.

I too will be quitting the airline world later this year. Obtrusive security checks organised by idiots, and carried out by low-end workers have contributed to my decision, and I look forward to improving my quality of life hugely by this move.

[chrisbl]

Osma must be laughing his socks off or whatever he wears these days. The war on terror has been well and truely lost.


Whatever Bush or Blair say he has been good for them in that they have got themselves and their mates incredible powers and money making opportunities.

What incentive is there for this to be resolved? Non, there is too much money and power at stake.

[fireflybob]

Pilots need to show solidarity against this bureacratic nonsense. Yes I am all for "reasonable" and polite security but in the wake of 9/11 a new empire has emerged - "Security".

In the UK if you had told the Railway Signallers or Train Drivers that they could not take liquids (ie food and water etc) to their place of work they would have all come out on strike and the network would have ground to a halt and then, I am sure, the politicians would have done something pretty smartly to get things going again.

Flight crew are in the front line of security - we are the "end users" (as well as pax etc) but we need to communicate to the politicians what is going on at the sharp end as I doubt whether many of them have a clue what we have to go through everyday of our working lives. A day or two of stoppage would soon make them take note!

[lexxity]

TSR2, you must pass through a different MAN to me. As a member of ground staff I pass through security several times daily and it is beyond a joke! I always take my shoes, jacket, hat and overcoat off. I no longer wear a belt. I still beep.:suspect: I am then patted down by some officious comfy shoe wearer and then have my possesions rifled though. This happens 3 out of 4 times! It is very trying to carry on being polite and then going about the business of customer service when you are fuming from the ritual humilation. I have made innumerable reports, as have my collegues, to my line manager and as far as we can all tell MAAS just ignore it.

You can't argue with "security" and if you do you are considered a threat.

I have also heard of several people who are leaving the industry, they are sick of being made to feel like criminals whilst going about their business. This includes every level from check in to flight deck. That is something we should be worried about. We are losing valuable, experienced people because of the nonsense that is now security.

[neil armstrong]

I for one will not let them take stuff off me!
I work for an cargo airline and drag a suitcase with a weeks worth of stuff with me.
I will turn around if they tell me i cant take stuff with me ,i dont have another option then to carry my razor and aftershave etc with me.
Offcourse our management tells us to cooperate with all requests from security people but they never deal with them sitting behind there desks!
Be nice to security but tell them ,sorry no im not going to do that! call the company and tell them you cant opperate the flight and dont forget call your union immediately after that (you wil problably need them)

Neil

[Tarq57]

TSR2,
Since the flight crew have executive control of the aircraft anyway, what on earth good does it do to confiscate the water bottle/nail file/swiss army knife or whatever? What is the point of screening them? If, in the future, they are required to carry a firearm on board, will they still have to loose the water bottle at the checkpoint?
Utter madness.
I would have thought it would be obvious.

[Bedder believeit]

As an Air T. Controller in Hong Kong, where the tower/centre complex is in the middle of the field, we have to go through this security rubbish every time we go to work. If there was a reason for me to quit and leave employment here, I would have to cite the hassles of getting to/from work as a major point. Having to duck through the metal detector each time hoping the damn thing won't go off is an excercise in blood pressure elevation. And then when we get to work, we have to eat meals with plastic implements. The whole issue is getting out of control.
PS, I have no problem with the securitry staff, they are very polite.

[TotalBeginner]

I spend approx 50% of my time working airside in the UK and I'm sick to death of having to give the BAA money every day just so that I can get a drink of water! I dread to think how much money I've squandered in the last year alone just buying fluids!!

I cringe every time I pass through a check point, listening to the staff dishing out orders, so absorbed in what they're doing they have no idea how rediculous they sound!

[jollypilot]

There is at least one security gate at LGW that screens EVERY staff members shoes that pass through.

Of the total number of people passing through every day, 1/3 need shoes checking.

Check all staff, and they need to check less pax. This is true, and it happens day in day out, so yes, crew do sometimes get treated different to pax.

[rubik101]

Now here are a few questions for our security experts.
1 litre of water and a 100ml orange squash in a small plastic bottle or 50 tons of kerosene; which is the most dangerous?
4inch nail file or 150tons of aircraft flown wherever I wish?
A member of crew with a sucurity pass, with all that entails in its' issue to the individual, or someone who is completely unknown to the authorities, with no background or police check whatsoever?
Somewhere the logic of daily screening of flight crews has got lost in the terror engendered by the Politicians and 'Industry' experts who tells us we are an inch away from a huge disaster.
Going through the security gate used solely by airport workers the other day, one of the five people on duty at the time, with his feet up on a table, was asking his colleagues, 'What was the last film that Richard Burton made?' I suspect they were practicing for a pub quiz.
My badge wasn't checked but my flask for drinking water was shaken to check it was empty.
Go figure, as our cousins over the pond are fond of saying.

[Bad-Man]

I am one of those who got very tired of these harrasments.
I retired 18 month ago, a year before I turned 60 because I was sick and tired of all those idiots in security.

My experience was that these idiots were more or less recruited out of a bunch that all failed the test for the police academy.
All had a "big boss" in their bellies, - and just wanted to show that to everyone in a uniform.
I did write some reports about the harrasment I was subjected to.

Especially those days where the search really went over my "border of sensitivity", - when the searches was too close to my very personnal limits, - and I mean that I dont want to be touched on any private parts in public, - I dont want to be questioned at all by any loudmouthed idiot who want to make fun of their "victim", just to show their coworkers and all other spectators how big and powerfull they are.
Oh my, -oh my, - how mad I could be.

Those reports did not help much, the general anwer was: "we are doing it for your security", - hereby meaning that I just had to take any jokes and any harrasment from the socalled security.
Security, - what a joke. I have as so many others seen security persons, policemen and ground staff as well as tecnicians working in the airports just go around the sensor and into the departure hall without being searched, while I as a pilot had to take the full treatment.

Well, - I enjoy my retirement, and I fly as little as possible as a pax. If possible I drive by car or take a train.

have fun out there
I miss my good colleages, but I can certainly do without harrasment form stupid security people.

To be honest I must admit that I also met a couple (not many) of security people that really understood how to perform their job in af professional way, - efficient and still with a positive, respectful and polite attitude.

B

[A Very Civil Pilot]

Our local paper is reporting that an airport seciruty officer was arrested recently. Apparantly he was an illegal immigrant from Zimbabwe using false identity documents.

Obviously no trouble getting a criminal records check then.

[llondel]

It may get merged into this thread, but if not:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=3184859

about a couple of fake police officers trying to get past security.

[non iron]

While positioning with a boarding card, in uniform, at a certain uk airport l was asked to remove my shoes going through pax security. At the other side a pax came over to ask why l had to take mine off when nobody else he could see was removing theirs. l answered in fairly pointed anglo saxon, to which he said he had got the same impression.
In the staff entrance of the same airport l had somebody`s fingers pushed into and around the inside of my collar. Extremely relieved when my basing changed.

[non iron]

l believe l`m right in saying that if somebody has only been in the country for three weeks, for example, the record check will only go back three weeks because it is not "practical" to go back further. At least that is what l was told at aforesaid uk airport. Utter madness.

[Ron & Edna Johns]

I'm Australian. Went to London and France on staff travel over Xmas.

Paxed sub-load LHR-CDG. No requirement to remove shoes, nor were any pax around me doing so. Returning from CDG, same story - no requirement. And leaving LHR to go home - no requirement.

Yet the QF operating crews told me ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of crew going secure-side are required to remove shoes for screening! Why?

So..... passengers no requirement, but for crew there is a requirement?

Someone mentioned there is a random shoe thing for passengers, or that a certain % have to be done. Maybe they meet quotas and reduce the % of passengers they hassle by doing 100% of the crew. Wouldn't surprise me.

And this is the country that stood proudly and firmly in the dark days of the IRA bombings?

Some pilot is going to end up sacked - for punching the lights out of a security officer one day. I can just imagine it.

You guys in the UK have lost the plot. And the cowardly country Australia is right behind. :(

[RAT 5]

Going through security ex-UK my bag was hand searched after X-ray. They were highly agitated to find a roll of photocopy sticky tape. Not allowed! Supervisor called. I asked how on earth could sticky tape be a dangerous item? Binding people up was the answer. How could I bring it in to UK from an EU country if the rules are universal? Ah, only UK observes the rules in their entirity. Gawd help us. Supervisor said the tape was too weak to pose a problem, so I could keep it. I asked, what about my tie and belt? Not covered by the rules so no problem. I gave up and confirmed why I left such a nutty country years ago. Common sense has been eradicated along with normal education, so it would seem.

[girtbar]

I too am so tired of the constant head banging, rising stress and blood presure levels and sheer frustration that results in going through security everyday.

One day i can take home made chunky soup as it was in grams, the next day they question the quantity of my youghurt pot checking it wasnt over 100mls!!!

I feel stressed but almost everyday a fellow crew member goes to work she is stopped questioned....sorry actually interogated, then between the nitwits they decide wether they should let her through. You'd think she's smuggling arms but no the hassel is all because she dyed her hair a different colour to whats on her ID pass!

Although you guys could fly the plane into a building there are plenty of ways us Cabin Crew can get you on the floor (so to speak ;) ) contact lense solution in your drinks, part cook the crew food....or just get the crash axe while we're delivering the latest copy of Nuts or Daily Mail into the F/D

I almost truly give.

Can we please do something about this madness???!!!

[flufdriver]

Well,
it would seem that the great majority of aviation personel on this forum have very similar feelings about about the security industry.
Now, what do we do about it? (if it is not already too late)
Obviously, the first mission is to include the rest of our colleagues in this discussion.
If we the likeminded, are still in a large majority, it is time to start talking about how to bring about a change.
One possible option is for all of us to donate a little of our intelligence and have it transplanted into the people that are running the security industry. However, that may not work because the big boys behind this scheme are not lacking intelligence, rather, they are motivated by greed and there is a lot of money to be made from a scared populace. Inconviniencing Flight crew is just a minor side effect, allowed to exist for the amusement of the poorly paid of the lowest level security staff.
That brings us to the second option; perhaps no flying for a 24hr period worldwide! How would you do this given the time zones? ok, during one 24 hr period starting one midday UTC to the next, no airline flight will leave the ground or something like that and there are probably many better ideas out there to get our message across.
Any reprisals against crew would be similarly addressed.
Something like that would certainly get the media's attention, I do know what will not get any attention, is just us talking in Pprune. Because the people that are right now checking who the hell is hiding behind the name "flufdriver" and how can we shut him up, will say let them vent their frustration on the forum if that makes them feel better!
your comments are encouraged!
fluf

[V1]

I just love the daily merry banter as I'm being patted down. I have yet to get them to get the conclusion and realise the futility of their actions yet but it pleases me to keep trying.

Usually it goes along the lines of:
......so what are you actually searching me for?
It's our job sir (if you're lucky)
...... No, no I mean what are you actually looking for (you'd be amazed at how often we never get further than this)
............For prohibited articles
............Because you are worried I might do what with them (again another conversation "stumper")
............You might commit a terrorist act sir
............and you don' think that without this bottle of water or my swiss arm knife I will be able to bring down this plane?

Silence hopefully as penny eventually drop!

Quick breathe deeply and repeat twenty times to myself "I am a professional I will not let this get to me"

[EatMyShorts!]

...and just yesterday I watched a scientific report on German TV, saying that:

- it was never proven that the alleged "terrorists" from last year really had any dangerous substances on them
- it is practically IMPOSSIBLE to produce the explosives in less than 12 or 14 hours time on board, because the explosives that were intended to use are highly explosive as powder and drying them (for cristallization) takes that long.

Result: All these new rules are complete BS and useless. Luckily some countries allow us crews on duty to take again all our belongings, including liquids of any quantity, into the security area inside the airport buildings. :ok:

[armada]

Worth mentioning :suspect:

UK 'plot' terror charge dropped

The alleged plot prompted a massive security clampdown
A Pakistani judge has ruled there is not enough evidence to try a key suspect in an alleged airline bomb plot on terrorism charges.
He has moved the case of Rashid Rauf, a Briton, from an anti-terrorism court to a regular court, where he faces lesser charges such as forgery.

Pakistan has presented Mr Rauf as one of the ringleaders behind the alleged plan to blow up flights out of London

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6175427.stm

[Viking]

I agree with flufdriver. I have thought the same thing myself on many occasions. This will not get better, only worse unless we are willing to take a stand now.:ugh:

[ZeBedie]

I was an eye witness today to a terrifying near miss at the crew security Ministry at London's Gatwick airport. A sharp-eyed and highly trained security operative (we will call him Bill to protect his family) sensed something suspicious whilst checking the contents of a GB stewardesses bag. As we were all told to hit the deck, Bill reached into the bag and with total disregard for his own safety removed a small can of peaches. With no hint of nerves he scanned the label, his training taking over under pressure, and his worst fears were confirmed. The innocuous looking tin of fruit was not 100ml in size but in fact a staggering 125ml - I saw it with my own eyes! As the offending crew member was frog-marched away for further questioning we all began to cheer as we realised how close we had come to disaster. Overcome with modesty Bill turned to me as I patted him on the back and said, with the gravelly voice of one who had seen combat: the real fear is that one day two or three of these might sneak through the net in different bags. The assailants could then meet-up on the aircraft and make a fruit cocktail. I for one will never again complain about the tightened security and finally; Bill I salute you! (As described by a certain LGW A320 skipper)

[Dream Land]

That was great, :} :} :D , during a short period of time a few years ago I was based in Minneapolis, the National Guard was posted at security checkpoints in addition to the TSA personnel, while in line one early morning I observed a guardsman reporting for work, he was in full military attire (including an M-16), after alarming the metal detector, you guessed it, they forced him to be wanded to check for concealed weapons? :ugh:

[GMDS]

When Jules Verne wrote From the Earth to the Moon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_Earth_to_the_Moon_%28disambiguation%29), nobody would have suspected how fast Science would make his vision come true.
When “Airplane II” was released, I would have never suspected that our politicians would make this satire true in my lifetime. (remember: the security dumboes let terrorists pass with bazookas etc., and right next to them they brutally manhandle a poor old granny with her handbag)

[Bigmouth]

Apparently the authorities in Norway aren't quite done yet making asses of themselves. It seems that rather than lying low for a while, they are now demanding background checks as well as security training for the police officers working airport passport control.

(don't know why they need cops to check passports, you'll have to ask them about it)

If I were Osama I'd be rotflmao.

[Stoic]

Paxed last week from LHR to EDI and back. On the way through T1 security the righthand queue was being required to remove shoes, the lefthand queue was not. Being of an age when putting shoes on and off is a hassle, I selected the "keep shoes on" security check.

[rigpiggy]

Not just pilots. While going through phx my mother was instructed to remove her socks. My mother stated"I'm not wearing socks I'm wearing Nylon's" again instructed to remove her socks after a about 5 minutes arguing with the security ninny, she removed her pants and walked thru wearing sheer nylons sans underwear." she's no shrinking violet" We all should be resisting this idiocy, and demanding satisfaction. I've already had 1 screener removed from the aircrew side for being overbearing and combative. Ask to talk to a supervisor, and follow up with letters, also cc your airworthiness authority, and your MP

[pacer142]

Regarding scanning everyone on trains, it won't happen because it's not practical, though there may well be random checks.

Incidentally, sharp items are permitted on Eurostar, though I've heard stories about security staff forgetting on occasions that they work in a railway station and not an airport and taking them anyway.

[spannerless]

I too have had various run in with jobs worths at check in and security screening never from the crew who still are my favourites in the industry! Nearly always pleasant, helpful and courteous, well nearly always.
One such episodes saw my young son's aged 3 & 5 in tears all because of jobs worth check in staff at Sandford Orlando
(What a crap airport, well the facilities are and some of the staff are rude arrogant and totally without feeling).
My two young sons had tiny and mean tiny sandwhich box size shoulder bags and two meduim size cuddly toys (Before the security scare of late) the Check in staff demanded that they either had to give up their bags which held personal medicines and sweets for the trip or give up their toys. I have seen lots a people carry on far more than my two sons on many a fllight up until the recent security. There was no barganing not even for small children in fact the staff got quite abusive and reduced the childern to tears not to mention held up the queque severely while we tried to re-arrange our carry on.
How un-feeling and autocratic is that!!!!!
I hope they feel ashamed of their selves?
Perhaps we ought to start the 'Golden Scanner award' or a more generic award for staff like this and name and shame them on a monthly post.
U never know service all round may improve???
Then it might not!
There have been lots of complaints in recent times concerning the United States and the way it handles it passengers.
Our family has lost lots of customers because of complaints about airlines, staff and security but have praised or hospitality and what we offer!
So guys your not just ruining your business!
:mad:

[Davaar]

QUOTE
and right next to them they brutally manhandle a poor old granny with her handbag)
UNQUOTE from GMDS.

Alas, such nonsense goes back much further than Aeroplane II. Try Jacques Offenbach, 1819-1880:

We're public guardians bold yet wary
And of ourselves we take good care
To risk our precious lives we're chary
When danger threatens we're not there
But when we see a helpless woman
Or little boys who do no harm…
We run them in, we run them in
We run them in, we run them in
To show them we're the beaux gendarmes (bis)

When young men like to make a riot
And punch each other’s heads at night
We are disposed to keep it quiet
Provided that they make it right
But if they do not seem to see it
Or give to us our proper alms…
We run them in, etc.

Sometimes our duty’s extramural
Then little butterflies we chase
We like to gambol in things rural
Commune with nature face to face
But when we go back to our duties
Refreshed by Nature’s holy charms…
We run them in, etc.

[PPRuNe Radar]

I still think Manchester are the best.

I was 'reprimanded' last week for placing my lip salve (4.8ml) in full visibility in the security box along with my phone, keys, etc.

It had to go through the scan again, but this time in a plastic bag.

You couldn't write a script for these goons :ugh: :p

[parsi]

What is becoming more worrying is the insistennce (Dublin and Frankfurt last week) that passports go into the xray machine as well. SO whilst you're walking through the metal detector your passport and wallet are not in your possession.

[llondel]

With any luck the x-ray machine will zap the biometric chip in the back of the new UK passports. :E

[WHBM]

Paxed last week from LHR to EDI and back. On the way through T1 security the righthand queue was being required to remove shoes, the lefthand queue was not. Being of an age when putting shoes on and off is a hassle, I selected the "keep shoes on" security check.
As the requirement is to check 50% of shoes, surely the most effective approach is to ask all pax to take just one shoe off .....

Let's face it folks, just like we all get great satisfaction from doing a Greaser in a crosswind, the screeners get their satisfaction from screwing those who earn more than the do. I expect they keep a league table of how many pax they can reduce to tears per hour.

[tunalic2]

It is only because it sometimes causes so much annoyance to the victims (crew etc) that the below average security person does this, so if you do not respond, they get no satisfaction, therefore you 'win'! Eventually they'll get bored. ......... On a bad day of course we can all be tired and respond.
At a certain Uk airport we now check our suitcases through a handling agent to circumnavigate the below average intelligence security staff, they are then delivered to our aircraft where we have full access to them as we only carry cargo. (now sometimes that includes shampoo bottles over 100 ml in size!)
In truth its a lack of education of these individuals that allows this to go on,therefore the companies employing them and the airport authorities employing these companie that are responsible. Its no good trying to reason with a neandathol, take their name and report them( if you want some fun ask them to spell it!) to everyone who would have an interest in it (manager,airport manager,your company manager,your union,mp,mep.) If the same names keep coming up then it will highlight a problem individual,shift,airport,etc.
with email this wouldn't be too time consuming.(for some of you wizz's out there)I guess it could warrant a web site? answers on a postcard please
T2

[Married a Canadian]

I'm glad I no longer work at EGPD tower which is also airside and the controllers had to go through the same type of shennanigans mentioned here.

You had to drive through the checkpoint.....a bottle of water was not allowed in your bag...but a full tank of screenwash beneath the bonnet was fine..along with a full tank of petrol etc etc. I heard one of my ex colleagues called their bluff eventually when he was refused to take through his lunch (pasta and sauce)... He ate some sauce in front of them but they still refused him access with his food. So he drove home...ringing ATC management on the way telling them his disgust. Management argued with security but were met with the "rules is rules" line!
Since then I have heard that marmalade has been refused entry...and you are not allowed more than two pieces of fruit with you either..serious!

It will only take one or two pilots to start the process..and a short staffed ATC unit as controllers turn round and head home. See what the response from the powers that be are then!?

There are some sensible security people out there. I was being searched at YYZ when the officer came across my controller ID and license which I had on me for some reason. When he asked what they were and what my job was he stopped the search there and then....thanked me for my patience, thanked me for the job we do and let me through! That guy probably has been sacked by now! If only the respect was there all the time!

[winkle]

this was the last straw for me. i am looking to change career in the very near future. i only see things getting worse in our industry. the fun has been removed from flying and its not getting better.
i would also vote for a down day a few large ads in the papers could do the trick or maybe balpa could ramp up a gear.

[DA50driver]

It seems to me that this is a pretty volatile subject.
There have been several ideas on how to change the situation. The idea of no flights for 24 hours would probably be very effective, but we would also be very unemployed afterwards.
We could try a charm offensive instead. What do you say we all bring our least favorite screaners a bouquet of flowers, all on the same day? Maybe it will work, stranger things have happened.
You can pick them up on your way in to the airport. If you are already out on the road you can lift the centerpiece from the breakfast buffet. Doesn't have to be anything too fancy, it is the thought that counts, right? Right???
Before I sign off, there are a few wonderful screeners out there, and you know who you are. All we as pilots ask for is as much respect as you want from us.
Lets make Friday March 23rd, 2007 the first Airport Security Squally Extinguishing Day. We can be refer to it as ASSED day.

[airmen]

Hassle is just the forename...

As an executive driver I have to go trough the crasy process sometimes as much as 6 times a day...:{

Let's talk about some: As a crew, I have to go trough the screening since years even if nowadays it is not necessary to have "tools" to be a terrorist, you only need access to the flight deck, turn off the AP and fly into the target! However they keep searching things in our possession...
As crew we are obliged to prove that we are good citizen in order to be hired and receive an airport and crew member card dont we?

In the other end, the fellow from the catering, ground services or whatever enters the sensible zone with no screening, even with a vehicle which could be full of sensible items like more than 100 ml water...:D

I am speeking in perfect knowledge, I am working in an airport since 1984 and believe me if you wanr to enter, you enter even without going trough security or jumping over a fence:ok:

Now, when I go to work to fly this aircraft, loaded by the guy from catering with a lot off unchecked stuff already inside, I am maybe the terrorist because I know how to disconnect the AP, and the guy from the catering placed also a bomb or the VIP (non checked today) pax his a terrorist, SO WHY it is the pilots who are searched deep for things?:yuk:

I am really sick of all that b......t and I have to remain very professional and calm (Hopefully I just did my CRM) not to pop out a fuse...

Let us react against the war against pilots:ugh:

[TotalBeginner]

I think we're all united in our opinions regarding the current security procedures, but I'm a little uncomfortable about directing this dissatisfaction at individuals.

Yes, there are jobs-worth’s working at security in airports all over the world, but there are also jobs-worths working in every industry in every walk of life (including flight crew)! How many pilot's would go against their company SOP's to satisfy their airline's customers? Should we expect these people to bend their rules, because their job is not as worthy? To say that these people are worthless, just because they earn less money, or are considered to have a lower social status, in my opinion is wrong.

I think it's quite likely that the hostile attitude that we've all been the victim of, is more often than not the result of being in a constantly negative environment. Let’s take a moment to look at this situation from their point of view. They are asked to do a job in a certain way and have to follow strict (ridiculous) procedures. Now imagine listening to all of our sarcastic comments, remarks and general bad feeling to what they are trying to enforce, day in day out. Let’s face it, eventually you’re going to end up a pretty sour individual.

Remember, there are always two sides to every story, maybe these people are as much victims as the rest of us?

[anotherspaceman]

I witnessed an armed airport police officer being asked to put his pistol through the scanner at the crew checkpoint. I am not quite sure what the security staff were looking for because they gave it back to him afterwards :ugh:

[fireflybob]

Let’s face it, eventually you’re going to end up a pretty sour individual.


TotalBeginner, yes I know where you are coming from but that's the point. Not everyone becomes like that - it all depends on the individual. Even in our jobs as pilot there may, from time to time, be aspects we don't particularly enjoy but that does not mean we have to take it out on the people around us.

[Ron & Edna Johns]

Went through the transit screening at Sydney domestic the other day. Three people there: the screener, my F/O and me. As I picked up my bag post x-ray I noticed a tray sitting on the rollers containing an apparently abandoned mobile phone.

I said: "Hey, someone forgot their mobile phone."

Screener says: "No no, that's mine."

He'd put his own phone through the machine?? I repeat, he was the only bloke there apart from us two crew. And he doesn't even have to step through the arch to get to his console. So they even give themselves a hard time!

I really should just give up, shouldn't I, and go give myself a good :ugh:

[biddedout]

It's backfiring in Manchester. The queues are so long to get through security most days that there is no time to browse through the shopping experience on the other side. Most pax end up standing around for 40 mins and then running direct to the gate. Profits down, will have to look for some cost savings. Cut the security saff pay and numbers.... revenues down further :rolleyes:

[Juud]

While PPRuNe is an excellent tool to inform eachother of what is happening internationally, limiting ourselves to posting and moaning here wil not improve our daily lives on the line.
As inviduals we are often regarded as overpaid & spoilt busdrivers and waitressses. As individuals, even as a group, we have little actual influence.

Airline management does have such influence.
They pay out the huge sums of money to airport authorities, their active involvement will have a result.
Management, like every other human being, is prone to flock-animal behaviour. Letting them know about what is happening in Norway, for example by copying the letter from post 7 on this thread and the newspaper article below, and urging them to take similar action would be a good start.
SAS Braathen is a large carrier, and a serious one. They are a 'safe' lead to follow for even the most careful manager.
Time to take action.

The Aviation Authority director will today meet with airlines and the Airport Authority Avinor to solve the the security check-conflict.

Pilots and other airline staff feel they are being harassed and made to look suspicious at the security checks. This weekend the CEOs of SAS Braathens, Norwegian and Widerøe sent a joint letter to Avinor expressing their strong concern about the developments, and stating that an unfortunate culture has developed at many Norwegian airports.

Thursday a flight from Hammerfest was cancelled after a disagreement between the flight’s captain and a security employee. On saturday news broke that another pilot, Per Olav Lyngøy from Widerøe, is resigning in protest against the way the new security rules are being practiced.
More pilots are considering resigning because they feel harassed at the security checkpoints.

In their letter the airlines point out that the provocative and humiliating treatment of flight crew has a negative effect on safety, since staff preparing for a flight is being provoked and distracted.
Yesterday the director of the Aviation Authority, Heine Richardsen, demanded a meeting with the parties involved.
We have also called in those who are responsible for the security checks, among other things to have a look at the training of the security checkers.
- this is an unacceptable situation, which we will resolve – says an Avinor’s spokesperson.

According to the Aviation Authority, the meeting will be based on the letter from the airlines pointing out that air-safety is endangered by the security checks.
If individual security checkers knowingly provoke flight staff, then the plot has been totally lost and we will have to clean up in this matter.
-security staff will have to do their job with respect. They need more training, and should learn about the effects their checks have on people.

Avinor will go through all documentation and reports from a long list of episodes, and will consider possible actions.

[VR-HFX]

Well I have generally found I get treated better as PAX than crew...so I am lucky...I won't be crew for too much longer..

The reality is that the security of our planet is now in the hands of the bottom two rungs on the ladder. No sense of humour, no ability to sense a situation and absolutely no ability to stop the professonals from blowing up my a/c.

Airport security..Try looking at a cow for 45 minutes...how secure do you feel after that?

Get me out of here.

[Fleetwing]

At last! I have been thoroughly enjoying the posts about this sore subject that lambastes the utter nonsense being perpetrated in the name of 'security' (insecurity). Having started my airline career nine years before airport security was invented and having had an enjoyable career abruptly ended by some building busting buggers thirty-nine years later, I was obliged to go home after I and twenty-four other expat pilots in the company I worked for were made redundant as a result of that action.

I have taken only two commercial domestic flights since! I certainly miss the flying itself but not the airport hassles. I can fully appreciate the enormous sacrifice to one's sanity every airline employee may be subjected to every day to satisfy the security sociopaths' demands.

Flufdriver really has the most effective solution to this extreme madness in my humble opinion.

It will take the unified solidarity of all working members of the aviation community affected by the daily humiliation and harassment of running through the airport screening gauntlet by literally HALTING all aviation activity of every description for a full twenty-four hours. No words that have been written in this forum along this thread that may be directed at media, government officialdom, or anyone else will do. ACTION is the loudest voice to be heard. Withholding all service worldwide for twenty-four hours, to include ground staff as well as aircrew may well be the loudest and only voice officialdom will be able to hear. I'm sure the traveling public would notice as they would be the most affected by the inconvenience.

My thanks to the many of you still at the front lines now having to endure.

[merlinxx]

looking at a cow for 45 mins, I thought this thread was for security numptys not global warming!

[merlinxx]

A suggestion, initial applications via national Pilot Associations to IFALPA, national Cabin Crew Associations together, national Trade Union groups who rep all segments of Ground Staff. This would be one hell of a powerful threat to allcon. Yes a logistical nightmare, but just think for a few minutes of what could be achieved, after all we are talking of AIR SAFETY here. The psychological impact of this stress inducing properties of such confrontations is well documented.

[Metro man]

There are a few good screeners out there, professional and polite but a lot of these idiots would be better suited to the wheel clamp unit, assuming they could lift their game enough to qualify.

What is the point of walking through the scanner anyway they are set so sensatively a rivet on a pair of Levis will set them off ? I almost stripped down to my underwear the other day I was so fed up with one of these morons.

Only thing to do is get the names of the worst ones and document the incidents, a few hundred complaints may lead to the bad ones being replaced.

At least if they do take my nail clippers away I can always use the crash axe to clean under my nails instead.:ugh:

[VH-Cheer Up]

Isn't the real reason for security screening uniformed flight crew more about treating each one as a possible imposter?

I mean, you know you're not an imposter,but how does the security screener know that?

If he knows you haven't any means of taking control of the aircraft other than the fact you already have control of it, hasn't the screener done their job?

I know how fecking irritating it is. I hate being treated on the assumption I'm a terrorist/criminal until they're satisfied I'm not.

But just because a person is uniformed and has airline and govt-issued ID doesn't make them above scrutiny. Does it?

[Tinstaafl]

Then what is the purpose of the ID? And the rest of the vetting we have to endure?

[VH-Cheer Up]

Then what is the purpose of the ID? And the rest of the vetting we have to endure?

Perhaps that is the point.

When you're a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail. The only job the screener has is to screen. So, screen is what they do.

If the job of the screener was to screen passengers, but to check crew really are who their ID says they are, then the farce of taking the captain's shoes and belt off could be replaced with a far more logical check that he really is the captain, not some Leonardo di Caprio "Catch me if you can" type fraudster - or something far more sinister.

Which is probably what the tech crew representative bodies should be pushing for.

What do you think?

[GIATT]

Going through Teeside about a year ago to board a C130 and go parachuting 50 of us rolled up in two buses at the checkpoint. Everyone off, smocks through the X-Ray machine, and everyone through the arch. Remonstrations that virtually everyone had at least one loaded magazine in a pocket stopped nothing.
Everyone beeped, everyone got patted down, and then they started putting the loose SA80's through as well....at the end of it all? Nothing confiscated, nothing said, just another 30 minutes out of everyone's life.

[PENKO]

Guys, please read totalbeginners post again and again.
There are always two sides to a coin.

What distresses me most, is not the stupidity of the security rules, but rather the utter contempt that some people have for the screeners who just do the job they are paid for.

[bear11]

This has been an issue before 9.11 - what do you expect for 7 bucks, or its equivalent, per hour, under severe pressure? Security in the US was sh*te before 9.11 due to paying peanuts, nowadays it's worse as a) there are far more of them on the same wage, and b) the procedures are complicated beyond belief or sense.

That said, though - PENKOs mention of contempt for the screeners rings true in some cases, and maybe the sometimes overzealous "attitude" comes directly as a result of our "attitude"? They're following SOPs rigidly, aren't you doing the same for your own job when you're finally let through?

Good for the Scandinavian airlines, though, it's about time there was a considered response as opposed to the bo**ocks about 24 hour strikes. Apart from that, you either a) employ more of them so they are under less pressure and can operate in a more human fashion, or preferably b) train them and pay them properly so they act professionally.

Got to go, I hear some BAA pigs flying outside the door....

[YesTAM]

I didn't have my camera yesterday which was unfortunate, because I saw the ultimate security nonsensity.

I was at The International Australian Airshow (at Avalon) and there on the flightline was a row of executive jets as well as Military and so on. The USAF was there, there are large numbers of military from all over the world, lots of medals etc. Security searched bags going in, security men everywhere.

Right in the middle of the flight line was a nice shiny new Pilatus PC-12 on display - owned by the West Australian Police no less - and it had a clamp lock on the nosewheel:ugh:

[VH-Cheer Up]

Right in the middle of the flight line was a nice shiny new Pilatus PC-12 on display - owned by the West Australian Police no less - and it had a clamp lock on the nosewheel

Probably parked illegally. Clamped by Victoria's finest. Lucky it wasn't towed to the Broadmeadows pound.

[Strepsils]

They're following SOPs rigidly

Quite often they're not, which is the root of many of our problems.

What is allowed one day is not the next, ALL crew made to remove shoes/belts etc. when it should be one in three.

As crew we are aware of the DfT/Transec requirements, we know when they are not being applied consistently, yet when we question or (god forbid) object to haphazard, non-standard checking we're told it's for "Security" and we just have to accept it.

This is a service industry. If the crews are getting this p!ssed of, what must the pax be like? People will simply want to stop flying and that's not good for any of us.

[Captain Greaser]

Just watched a film about United 93 and it has spurred me to make a post regarding something I have felt for some time now.
With our rediculous cockpit doors how now would the pax overcome the hijackers. Answere. No chance.Once they gain access to the cockpit the pax would have absolutely no chance of overpowering them.
Lets face it.We all have to go out and take a leak and that would be the time for would be hijackers to storm the flightdeck.
It seems to me that our bullet proof,terrorist proof cockpit doors are of no use unless we have a further door or shutter protecting the cockpit any time we take a leak,This further door or shutter would not have to be bullet proof but just a delaying tactic so the crew member could return to the flight deck.
I'm just a normal Joe Soap captain flying the line in a small airline. Of course I'm sure my opinion doesn't count for anything despite the fact I have 12000 hours logged and am flying 27 years.
Better ask some security moron for his opinion, who specialises in hastling me everytime I go to work, rather than ask me my opinion.
After all. I am anly a pilot!

[HyFlyer]

No doubt they would take a set of nail clippers and a bottle of water off you as you pass the 'security' control.....

then a few minutes later you take control of a large aluminim can full of jet fuel, oxygen and other combustibles............and also a few large axes...and other assorted cutting instruments.

Lunatic...waste of time........

Only a politician could believe this is worthwhile

[non iron]

Having had searches more suited to being put in a cell, on occasions, and security checks at places where the ground staff actually recognise me and refrain from intimidation, l have to conclude that something important is missing.
bear 11`s "considered response" is good and l think VH-Cheer UP hit the "nail on the head" - no pun intended.
Same industry, same operation, same objective.
Same clearance airside.
As long as private enterprise works alongside government agencies with varying degrees of paranoia about litigation when things turn belly up (commercial losses as well) then we are stuffed.
Bone fide staff must have direct access but it will take big balls from the government to do it.
l won`t be holding my breath.

[Danny]

Jeez! How many times has it got to be said? Until profiling by trained profilers is adopted then you are going to see the farce continue.

The point should be to find intent in a person who want's to commit an act of violence rather than trying to spot the liquid or sharp object. There is an unlimited amount of sharp objects available once airside so what is the point?

You stop the individual with the intent. The current fashion amongst the DfT and the airports is to screen for sharps and liquids. It's dumb but you try getting those responsible for the decisions to own up? :rolleyes:

Oh, and before the righteous fluffy brigade throw their "oh so predictable but ill informed" accusations that it's racist, perhaps you should understand that no one is advocating "racial profiling" but "psychological profiling". I won't go into the details on here so you can go and do your own research. It's proven to work and is is much more likely to prevent an attack than the current moronic searching for the ultimate nail clippers. :hmm:

[non iron]

Yes, we know that the retired C of E vicar taking his grandchildren on holiday is no threat. l was stunned to be patted down by a dreadlocked cretin on my front and a full bearded (cut off square) prat feeling my arse. But l can`t say that.
Your irritation doesn`t help.
Best shut up and get on with it, l suppose.

[7909AAB]

Having read all the posts I think it is rather useless though justified in some cases to blame the screeners. They do their job and are paid for doing what they told to do rather than to use common sense. The latter would even intimidate their jobs.

However, the politicians who are responsible for these procedures are to blame. Their "no-exception-for anybody" decisions have created all the unpleasant situations many of us have encountered.
Why are there so many differences in security procedures in different areas? Of course Far East is the area which is most comfortable for pilots in terms of being respected while North America, Central America in particular and Europe are less pleasant. However, there are the different rules in these countries which make the difference.

In my judgement the solution could be a world wide standardization only, e.g. a world wide database with biometrical data such as eye scanning which identifies a crew member undoubtedly. Having properly identified there would be no need for crew members to undergo a screening at all which would be justified in my eyes due to the nature of our job.

To blame the screeners is useless as they are working like robots and hiding behind the rules.

[VH-Cheer Up]

Danny aka Capt Prune said:
Until profiling by trained profilers is adopted then you are going to see the farce continue.

Hear hear!

A friend has a daughter who is a very gifted classical violinist and frequent flyer. Every time she goes through security the violin (worth untold megabucks) sets off some alarm and gets rescreened for explosives. Probably 300 year-old varnish fumes, who knows?

Point is, she is not now, never has been, and never will be a threat to anyone. The time they spend on her they are missing the potential imposters among the cleaning crew taking a trolley of assorted who knows what out to an aircraft to conceal whatever in bins and pockets for accomplices to pick up later. Maybe.

What next, stripped naked and forced to "shower" before boarding? We all know how that one ends.

The situation has to change so instead of the "1984" version of security, where we are made to feel something horrible is happening to us just for our own welfare, we have targeted, insightful, sensible security. Profiling is just one key aspect of that. The business traveller routinely commuting between capital cities isn't going to suddenly go feral and sign up with a terrorist group. Like the aircrew, once the system "knows" that person, all that needs to be done is to check they really are who they say they are. All over, move on, catch some real crooks and leave the fare-paying punters with their Y-class misery.

Trouble is, the pollies have no idea how to address the situation. So instead we have to put up with this pathetic window-dressing approach. What we really need is genuine security, targeted at screening out those who are considerably more likely to be harmful or toxic to their fellow travellers.

Profiling. Bring it on. Now. Who cares if it's PC or not?

[Wrongstuff]

This article is from a couple of years ago courtesy of the Times. I kept it because it sums up the stupidity of random searches. Danny is right.


Martin Samuel, writing in today's Times, supports HRH: (edited)

Terrorists travel unmolested, while airport busybodies decide they must do security checks on harmless royalty
A NICE, EASY target, Prince Andrew. Come on, the man is a joke. So when he throws a regal tantrum at Melbourne airport after being asked to undergo a security check before departing for New Zealand, the press take aim faster than a Balmoral shooting party.

“Prince Pompous,” announced the Mail. “Very Idiotic Prince,” sneered the Mirror. You can imagine what is being said in Australia, a country that managed to turn a rugby match into class war two years ago. “Who does he think he is?”, exclaimed an affronted security worker. “The law is the law, no matter who you are,” intoned the spokesman for the Australian Republican Movement.

And three days after this silly spat, Bali went up again. Andrew, you see, was right; he was just right for the wrong reasons.

His security check, we are told, only took ten seconds. Yet multiply that by every other stupid, unnecessary, diversionary security check undertaken throughout the world and how many hours, days, weeks and months do you think are lost each year looking for completely the wrong people in completely the wrong place? Others subjected to well-targeted Australian security searches of late: Helen Clark, Prime Minister of New Zealand, and Sir Michael Somare, Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, who was made to remove his shoes. Still at large? Azahari Husin, also known as the Demolition Man, architect of four big terrorist atrocities in Asia, each aimed at least in part at Australian targets.

Prince Andrew is not too important to be searched; he is too unimportant. What are we doing giving princes the once-over, when active terrorists walk unmolested? Adhering to nothing more than a preposterous, half-baked, fake egalitarianism that in this case actually works against the common good. Please do not insult our intelligence by pretending that a man who spends every waking hour flanked by MI5 and Special Branch heavies could ever present a tangible terrorist threat.

“What makes him think he should be treated differently?” asked the dingbat from the Republican movement. Perhaps because, unlike just about everybody else passing through international borders each day, we know for a fact, 100 per cent, that he presents no danger whatsoever to society, unless he shanks one from the first tee.

There is something else about Andrew that is largely ignored. He has been in a war. This gives him the jump on 99.9 per cent of people who currently believe themselves to be in the advance party of the War on Terror, including glorified draft dodgers in suits in the White House and security staff at Melbourne airport. Andrew saw action aboard HMS Invincible in the Falklands in 1982 as a Sea King helicopter pilot in 820 Naval Air Squadron. He was part of the task force that sailed to the south Atlantic and directly engaged in anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare and Exocet missile decoy.

This appears to have placed him more at the sharp end of life and death conflict than the chap currently rifling through your wife’s vanity case in terminal one, looking for nail clippers.

And while minor royalty might take some beating in this field, there are, in my experience, few more pompous individuals than those engaged in the increasingly spurious business of airport security. Not one pinprick of doubt is allowed to permeate that elephantine hide of misplaced certainty.

The news that assorted al-Qaeda nut-bags, masterminds, suicide bombers and support networks have moved through airports from training camp to inner-city mosque without harassment does not faze them; the muffled explosions from Tube carriages and tourist spots raises not one question.

If the computer selects Diana Ross or Andrew Windsor at random, then Diana Ross or Andrew Windsor must be scrutinised. As if. As if this presents even a remote chance of an investigative breakthrough, as if this pointless pedantry can ever succeed in making the world safer.

“Everyone has to go through security screening,” said a Group 4 spokesman. Well, everyone should not have to, you dolt. Can’t you see that is the problem? This is far too serious to be weighed down with small-minded bureaucracy. Each second shaking down Prince Andrew in Melbourne was a second wasted. The same second it would take to send another nightclub or commuter train to kingdom come. Random searches shed random light on a subject far too significant to be treated this haphazardly.

The most spurious claim is that Prince Andrew is meant to set an example. Of what? Meek acceptance of a system that is so badly flawed it puts lives in danger? There are two possibilities. The first is that the Prince truly believes his royal bearing sets him apart, in which case he is twit, and an expensive one; the alternative is that, in a rare moment of golden insight, Air Miles Andy looked up from his tee-shot and saw the complete sham that is the front-line of the War on Terror. It could happen: on a golf course, you see, you get quite a lot of time to think.

[YesTAM]

And to pour another little cup of petrol on the fire.... Seems like you light have an ally in John Murphy MP in Australia. From the ABC this morning in Australia.

Grenade gets past airport security screening

It has been revealed an airport security failure allowed a man to fly from Los Angeles to Sydney with a grenade in his checked luggage.


After questioning from the Opposition, the Justice Minister has confirmed the incident took place last April and came to light when the passenger declared the grenade upon arrival in Sydney.


The grenade was found to be inert and had been purchased by the passenger as a souvenir.


American authorities have since been notified of the screening failure, but Labor MP John Murphy wants an explanation.


"Somehow or other a grenade has gone through undetected when every day around the world security agencies are picking up passengers for having scissors and nail clippers in their luggage," he said.


"I'm absolutely amazed and I'd like to know what the American authorities are doing about that."

[WHBM]

The current (well, this week's) DfT ruling is that "half" of all screened pax have to remove their shoes. So how is this implemented ?

UK domestic round trip yesterday. Outward sector, one screening channel was taking shoes off, the other was not. Quite apparent when choosing which queue to join, if you looked for it.

Return flight, I asked shoes on or off. Screener looked down at my shoes and said "off". I asked why, I was told "it's because they are slip-ons and therefore easy". And this was true, colleague behing with laced shoes was not troubled.

DfT, you are absolute plonkers.

[skydriller]

This is a service industry. If the crews are getting this p!ssed of, what must the pax be like? People will simply want to stop flying and that's not good for any of us.

In my case this is already happening.....I fly for business around twice a month, so to a certain extent there is no avoiding it, but...

1) I avoid transiting the UK whenever possible now due to the more stringent hand luggage requirements.

2) We, as a Family no longer travel by air when visiting family in the UK - we will be driving and ferrying (or taking the club Robin if I can persuede Mrs SD..:) ) - Its just too much hassle to fly with a young child under todays security rules.

3) The TGV is pretty good here.

Regards, SD..

[John Boeman]

Wrongstuff, thanks for posting that piece by Martin Samuel, it is so accurate. A quick search on him (Samuel) came up with this as well,

"The Met Police, in emergency situations, has a Gold Control and a Gold Commander. Beneath him is a Silver Commander. I’m not making this up. Maybe it goes all the way down to tin, like anniversaries. What do they think this is: Captain Scarlet? So what say we take Cobra, Gold Commanders, stupid slogans on the sides of police cars, random searches of people who could not possibly be terrorists, graded terror threats, coppers making self-serving speeches on Today and consign them all to the rubbish bin inside a black bag labelled: Stuff That Did Not Work (2001-05). Then we take all that manpower, brainpower, extravagance and effort and use it to put a sniffer dog at every station entrance. Then we scrap each bogus PR initiative and bonding exercise and put another dog on the platform. And take the ring-fenced money from motor offences to put Fido on each train, too. Then we can begin to find out what is and isn’t inevitable."

He really does have a grip on the farcical daily show that goes on around the world in the name of security, doesn't he.

[non iron]

l have to ask who pays for security, and the second and final question is, "why" ?

[Flyer 1492]

It was early in the morning in Canada a few years after 9/11 and we were going thru security, with no one around I asked the screener why I should be checked. I pointed out that my security tag allows me to be on the restricted side of the airport, and that I had been checked by the RCMP, and CSIS and who knows how many others. Her repy was that they were pilots that crashed the planes. I told her no, it was terrorists that had hijacked the planes and flew them into the buildings. She thought about it for a few seconds, and with a surprised look exclaimed REALLY????.

My First Officer, was amazed at my self control he thought I should have yelled at her. I just replied, how do you argue with stupidity.

I see nothing has changed over the years.

Flyer

[Francis Frogbound]

Further to earlier posts about the intimacy of the searches carried out: I regularly fly with a lady P2 who is one of the funniest people it has ever been my pleasure to meet. Normally she passes on some humerous quip to me as we leave the nightmare of security behind. Two weeks ago we left security and dashed for the aircraft because the hold up had been longer than normal. Sitting in the cockpit awaiting pax she was quiet and subdued. It wasn't until we got to our hotel that night that she finally admitted she felt she had been sexually abused as she was searched that morning. She described the search and I agree with her it went way too far.

A formal complaint has been filed by our company with the airport involved. The searcher is still working (apparently not suspended during an investigation) Whenever our pilot flies now her colleagues make sure they can see her at all times during the search process. I have no reason to doubt this lady. She has been a great workmate for some time. The way her whole demenour changed that day makes me believe her even more. I may have my scissors/bottle of Evian/dignity removed daily but to use this ridiculous situation as a gropers charter makes it even worse.

FF

[despegue]

I stopped flying passenger aircraft recently and I'm now hauling cargo. I can't tell you how relieved I am that at least freight dogs are treated with more respect ( as far as my experience goes) as I can bring my toiletries etc. with me.

A European-wide 24h action-day might put the spotlight on our situation. Invite press and tell them our story.
We should all refuse to operate if not treated with the respect that officers require.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
RE. the WA Police at the Avalon Airshow, glad to see the WA Police, at least, were complying with DOTARS security rules for securing aircraft.
Now the massive non-compliance of some many aircraft owners, operators and exhibitors has been publicly revealed, I trust the DOTARS inspectors will crack down on such bare-faced public displays of contempt for those "rules" that are intended to keep us "alarmed but no alert" ( that's what the only fridge magnet I have says).
Seriously, during a recent stop in Alice Springs, in a small twin, I wandered off for a tinkles and a bottle of cold water, about 10 minutes. Needless to say, I had not bothered to fit the control lock, lock up the aircraft (OAT about 36C) and fit the wheel lock.
What a performance, and I was told I will be receiving a penalty notice. On that basis, the potential fine revenue at the Airshow could help pay off the national debt.
Tootle pip!!

[BusyB]

From todays SUN (not my normal read I hasten to add).

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007130861,00.html

:confused: :ugh:

[gone till november]

We all know that many of the so called security staff are failed crew. The closest they can get to our game is to feel you up with some trumped up security ploy.

Why not try this. If as is inevitable, they get more stupid than usual....accuse them of being a terrorist and that their behavoiur is making you unhappy with the security situation.

Call the police and for the so called supervisor (cohort with one extra brain cell......thats one then) and ask for them to be probed and removed from their post and job. Turn the tables!!!!!

You as crew are perfectly entitled to as at the end of the day when they cock up its us that hit the building first. Turn the table on one of gods dumbest animals.

Its also a bit of an insult to us that these idiots (actually thats an insult to idiots in general) think that we are as stupid as they are and wouldnt be able to think of a smarter or easier way the cause truoble than bring it through security.

We all know what we carry on the aircraft for safety and emergency's do they know it as well and if not maybe someone should tell them

To all the good ones and there are one or two. Please educate the fools that are giving you a bad name.

[Stearperson]

Its really fun to mess with the screeners by asking them simple staightforward honest questions.

For example: Who screens the first TSA screener to arrive at work in the morning?

Its amazing how the simplest questions can infuriate them.

LOL, Stearperson

[FlexibleResponse]

For example: Who screens the first TSA screener to arrive at work in the morning?

And what sort of screening is carried out to ensure that a terrorist can't become a screener?

One would presume it is the same screening that is carried out to ensure that a terrorist can't become a pilot?

Perhaps we should have pilots screening the screeners?

The most trusted people seem to be the cleaners who should therefore should screen the first screeners so that the screeners could then screen the cleaners.

The next politically correct moron that sticks his head up will probably be trying to tell us it wasn't a Pakistani national who murdered Bob Woolmer.

[makintw]

Someone mention the TSA??

http://cartoonbox.slate.com/hottopic/?image=27&topicid=80

:} :} :}

[PENKO]

Again, utter contempt from certain individuals on this thread. Unbelieveable. I now totally understand why the screeners may have attitude towards us.

[FlexibleResponse]

Screening can be conducted in a very pleasant and non-confrontational manner and with uniform rules. And to be fair, this is the case in at least 98% of airport screening.

The question has been posed "Who screens the screener?" and we are waiting with bated breath for a rational answer.

The mindless act of removing a pair of nail clippers from the Captain of an aircraft has to be seen for the absolute political crock of **** that it truly is. Until that realisation is able to permeate the minds of those who are charged with the job of airport security, we are pissing into the wind against birdbrains.

[HyFlyer]

I travel extensively worldwide, pax or crew on private aircraft. I find security screening a sureal exercise. There is no logic or sense any more.

1) Any half decent serious terrorist or agitator could easlily get unarmed combat training. Hence with no arms (knives etc) they can do serious damage and even kill.

2) My daughter aged 5 had a pair of kids plastic scissors confiscated. I even suggested to the 'security' clown that he tried to do any damage to me to see if the items were dangerous...he declined. Damn, it is virtually impossible to cut even a single sheet of paper with these toys...the ends are rounded, the handles plastic...the actual blade about 1 inch long only and not sharp enough to cut your finger on...even if you try....remember aimed at 5 year olds.


3) In india recently was not allowed to pass security with a flight bag and laptop (the laptop with flightplanning data and other info for flight).... reason......not active flight crew......true as I was on the way to position to pick up an aircraft (hence one way ticket). The actual rule being that passengers are only allowed one tem of hand baggage. BUT....that doesn't could for women who get an item of handbaggage and a handbag.....ehhhh
And as you can guess most of the ladies had massive 'handbags' this being India. Even after showing licence...still not allowed to pass.......and then a lighbulb went on....

So I just taped the two bags togther......made a handle out of tape and claimed they were a single bag.....YUP...that's OK now sir.......


We all have hundreds of these examples of stupidity.........

George Orwell wrote non fiction..................

[TotalBeginner]

This hand baggage rule (1 only) is rigidly enforced at BAA airports in the UK even if it's more stringent than the airline's own regulations. But I fail to see how limiting hand baggage, improves security?

[skydriller]

This hand baggage rule (1 only) is rigidly enforced at BAA airports in the UK even if it's more stringent than the airline's own regulations. But I fail to see how limiting hand baggage, improves security?

And not many of the airlines clearly tell you about this either....

.....And if you have two bags its OK to put one inside the other if they fit....:hmm: Then at the X-Ray machine they will tell you to remove it and pass them separately:ugh: :ugh:

...Of course none of this matters if you are Cherie BLiar.....:rolleyes:

As I said earlier, UK avoided if at all possible now,

Regards, SD..

[Bamse01]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykzqFz_nHZE

[FlexibleResponse]

Thanks Bamse01 .

That takes the cake!

[CR-ASC]

As we all know, the so called security reached stupid levels.
While working in a so called 3rd world Country as a Crew Member and as a
Captain participated activelly in the security of the airport and the airline.
As a Captain I had the direct contacts (confidential numbers)of Police Chief in charge of Security, I had a status of quasi paramilitary wich allow me to request any Police action and most important of all, the crew members were all briefed to be proactive regarding security.
By the way I had a close encounter with terrorists and all was solved with the information gathered by flight crews.
No nonsense of nailclippers, etc.
On the other side in the so called first world , the crews are considered the enemy, as a result I do not see any atention to detail, any participation of crews in general security, wich allows me to conclude the terrorists have a easier life in the side of the world.
The only way we can change this is maybe making a petition to European Parliament or the Washington maybe if we can get strong enought we can convince the politicians to revise these laws and change our role in this mater

[GroundBunnie]

<This hand baggage rule (1 only) is rigidly enforced at BAA airports in the <UK even if it's more stringent than the airline's own regulations. But I fail <to see how limiting hand baggage, improves security?

TotalBeginner

It isn't to do with improving security, it's to assist the 3rd party security companies who operate central search in achieving the targets set by the UK Govt. i.e. X amount of pax in Y hours, so the Govt can chalk up another success

GB

[ph-ndr]

By the way I had a close encounter with terrorists and all was solved with the information gathered by flight crews.

Was this by any chance the menaces of the world, and now current threat to civilization as we know it, the infamous Granny's Shampoo League or the Watermongering Mujjahedin of Afghanistan?

Seriously, as a SLF I'll gently crawl back into my corner, but I do agree that the way security is handled in being solely the domain of a chosen few and practiced in a Dubya way of "with us or against us", i.e. part of the security force or dumb sheep, is hardly leveraging the possible resources at hand.

On the other hand, the image this projects to the travelling public is that you guys up front on seat 0A and 0K should notbe trusted... :rolleyes:

-A

[MD11Engineer]

Actually our airport security have a lot of common sense. The reason might be that it is a small airport, where everybody know each other. They search us, but are not obnoxiously invasive. They also understand that a lot of what they are doing is just for public perception and does not increase real security, like asking us what we need our tools for. They know us since years and know that we aircraft maintence and they know that a trerrorist would just as well lie to them to get e.g. a knife through.
Unfortunately the security people are being watched themselves, e.g. a while ago a secretary, who was a personal friend of many security people was given a gun by the police and ordered to carry it through a checkpoint to see if the security screeners would search her correctly, even though she was wellknown to them. She later apologised to the guards.
What I don't like is that certain members of the airport management are considered inherently secure and have keys to open doors, which bypass security, as well that they do not have to be searched.

Earlier this year we had a new secirity company which became responsible for the airport perimeter and the ramp area, as well as armed guards at the passenger checkpoints. In the beginning they were very officious and pompous (like arresting a colleague, who lost his ID while working on a plane. We searched the plane, found his ID and got him fee again within half an hour, but this stupid 19 year old secondary school dopout told me in a pompous voise that it was strictly forbidden "TO LOOSE ONE'S ID BADGE"..

[Volmet South]

I was travelling through Heathrow with seven week old Little Miss Volmet and was challenged over the bottle of milk in the hand luggage. I was asked to test the liquid so I thrust the bottle into Little Miss Volmet's mouth and she began to greedily gulp down the contents (she has her dad's apetite). Security were duly satisfied and we proceeded on our way.

On the return leg through Edinburgh, the same situation presented itself. Mr Security was not happy watching Little Miss Volmet wolf down a late lunch and insisted that I taste the contents of the bottle myself.

Me... "Why do I have to taste it ?"

The officious one replied...."You may happily harm the baby sir but not yourself"

Me... "Which one of us will alert you if the liquid is not milk ?"

The officious one narrowed his eyes and repeated "You may be quite happy to harm the baby sir but not yourself".

Me.... "If I intended to down an airliner, hurting myself would be the least of my worries".

The penny dropped and with a wry smile he replied "have a nice flight".

[CR-ASC]

I keep reading stories regarding the so called security
regarding flight crew members.
But instead of telling stories we should start same
form of fight against this situation.
We all should get organized and stop this nonsense:we are the criminals and security officers are god's.
We are screened by the airlines, to maintain our licences our
criminal record is analized, a lot of us are ex-military who held
various responsabilities reagarding use of deadly force or use of
confindential/secret documents/material.
Now we are the criminals.
While security personnel ,which I already found, sametimes have a dubious past:eek: .
Ok, now they might be screened for the last 5 years of their life and so what?
What is that compared to professional crews that flown all their working lives?
Is time for action.
Or we take action or it will never stop.
Is it normal for a flight crew member to be delayed in is briefing time, stripped of clothes, flight bag searched because of a flight computer , etc. Then had to depart on time and if not, it is is fault and then has to explain why the flight was late?
By the way the security officer never understood wath was the use of the flight computer, he only taught of using it was a weapon:ugh: , like I didn't have a crash axe and a crowbar in the cockpit.
Where is the safety versus security?
Is time to take action fellows.

[non iron]

facts as always accurate, taking the p.
Stepped aside to let a wheel barrow load of drinking water be scanned for commercial sale the far side. Value increased by a factor of four. Could l put mine through?
Don`t be silly.

[Nardi Riviera]

a wheel barrow load of drinking water be scanned for commercial sale the far side.

While you and everybody else have TO TASTE the contents of a 100ml container of fluid (or your baby's formula etc).

So then "somebody" obviously believe or pretend that scanning will reveal dangerous ingredients in fluids.

Then why is this method not applicable for passengers/crew?

:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[cork]

After brushing over some of the messages, I just wanted to say that you guys are on track with what you feel in regards to the security sham and there is more!!
Have you noticed the feeling in the airports since 9/11. Does it feel safe? Professional? Or could we ask for just basically friendly? NO!! Terrorism or the illusion of, is a wonderful opportunity for the powers to be to impose tight controls on the people and take away our most basic freedom. As well as breeding more distrust and negativity about the world we live in. I remember not so long ago when walking thru an airport was a warm and friendly experience. Not anymore. And further more, its creating more of the same.

[shortm]

Last week when passing through the crew search area at a major UK airport my handbag was selected for a more thorough search. No complaints or comments from me as they checked through the bag, opened a little zipped compartment and checked my make-up bag - all liquid items from this had been sent through seperately as required.

Got on to the aircraft and decided I needed a bit of perfume to freshen up. Couldn't see it in my little plastic bag so where do you think I found it - that's right, in my handbag which had obviously been very thoroughly searched :ugh:

[LH2]

Let us just say this whole thing is a complete farce.

I have never stopped carrying any of the usual stuff (water, toothpaste, food, etc.), and in the same way I get away with carrying those I could get away with carrying anything else, were I so inclined. Try it yourselves and be amazed by all the abounding stupidity and mindlessness :hmm:

[Fuel Boy]

As a refueller at MAN I have to run the gauntlet of trying to get airside upto 6 times a shift (8hours). It does get frustrating seeing the same faces all day and still having to remove boots.

I have issue with the fact that we have to get a Disclosure form (checking your background for criminal acts) just to get an airside pass, and you are still treated as a terrorist.:rolleyes:

Unfortunately things are getting worse with new proceedures just to get onto the ramp. I wouldn't mind the serching if they were able to check our veh. better. I might not have the most dangerous boots but at least they have been checked, but the lax veh. serching means I could bring anything I wanted onto the ramp.....:=

[ZeBedie]

"Are you carrying any liquids?" "er...I've got 30 000 liters of avgas with me..."

[shaun ryder]

Did anyone notice the high level of professionalism being displayed at one of the checkpoints early evening/ last night? In what only can be described as running the gauntlet to the sound of gangsta rap being blasted out at high volume from a ghetto blaster. A certain member of security seemed to forget that he was in the UKs premier airport and thought maybe he was in south central LA with his homies? Grinding away to this drivel we were subject to his lack of 'respect' as he openly spoke down to a high ranking aircrew member as they passsed through the metal detector. Talk about CRM? How to piss a flight crew off before going to work more like!

It was a disgrace and a complaint was forwarded.
:cool:

[flufdriver]

:hmm: Sooo....

What are we going to do about it?

It seems that after all is said and done, (much) more will be said then done.

Why should anyone change anything if all we do is bitch about it amongst oursleves!

:{

fluf

[non iron]

There is nobody more responsible than the driver of 20+ tonnes of A-1 around the ramp, or engineers trying to get to their charges.
The fact, l believe, is that the " rules " are to be interpreted and modified locally to fit commercial needs. EU regs are treated as guidance only, a bit like a manufacturers MEL. (notoriously the thinnest book around).
l, for one, would wish for more bitching `cos that`s all we have.
Or do you seriously feel we have commercial clout these days ?

[chuckie1]

My husband has an artificial leg and after having to sit in front of passengers in uniform and pull up his pant leg to show he had an artificial leg and then for them to have to swab on the top of it, he decided if he had to go through this all the time, he would rather quit. Main reason because passengers get worried if he even has a scratch on his face, knowing he has an artificial leg would not go over too well. He then found if he became one of the pilots that are armed, he did not have to go through the secruity gate. He did that.