The "Crew Security" Thread (merged)

[luoto]

Dependent on local labour laws, couldn't everyone sign off with stress or something or refuse to fly after the painful search?

Of course, it will give passengers problems too :( And will be typically when I need to get back to base on commercial flight.

But national pilot unions should do something for their members, get the media alerted, each and every day. I am not normally in favour of militancy (people like SAS cabin crew can do their own damage to the industry with their ongoing strikes) but this is a problem for both crew and PAX.

I know passengers are unhappy with security even those who swallow the line about it being in the "war against terror" (sic) but I think they sympathise. Maybe draw parallel to bus and train drivers and those in other jobs where a "mess up" or incident could kill and injure many. And show what lack of security is there.

[Mr Magoo]

Here's an idea, cut a couple of 18 inch long bits of hose pipe and sew one in each inside leg of a pair of trousers...
Now THAT will both confuse and impress the stupid b*stards :}

(Especially if a few of the girls did it too....:eek:)

[IcePack]

One anomaly is that BALPA has been trying to get information on security incidents like all those quoted above. However they have recieved very few. Some of which have proved to be hearsay. Without actual dates and times, names etc., it means action is very difficult. This unfortunatly means that TRANSEC (UK Security) think everything is fine and working.
I urge all BALPA members to copy any security incidents to BALPA, so the organization has some definitive proof, so they have something to take to TRANSEC.
Please.

[BOAC]

.....and to Chirp (http://www.chirp.co.uk/main/default.asp) please as previously requested. Moaning here is like wetting your pants - it gives you a warm feeling for a few minutes and then...........................:)

They are waiting for your report. As ICEPACK says, without firm evidence nothing will be done (and even with......:{ )

[Double Zero]

You may or may not be interested to hear that machine-gun toting police have been strolling around Rusper, a small West Sussex village north of Horsham, near the Gatwick flightpath.

They terrified half the residents of the quiet one-road village, while the other half seemed to take comfort ( maybe they might riddle the odd burglar ).

It seems they were patrolling looking for baddies with shoulder launched missiles; a chap in a turban with a casual Stinger over his shoulder would of course blend in so well in Rusper...

Naturally the high street is the best place to look, the plods would get their feet wet if looking in the countryside, and the bad guys would never be so unsporting as to hide...

West Sussex County Times front page a week or two ago - my first post was promoted to Spotters' Corner which I thought below the belt, am an aerial photographer - very nearly pond life I know but it's fun.

[carousel]

As your permission is required to search "May I search you" once you have concented the search is as intimate as required.No search of you or your possesions is permitted at UK security stations without this concent (no answer but a raising of outstretched arms is taken as concent). If requested a private search may be conducted. Refusal to allow a search may result in addmission being declined.:confused:

[hotmetal]

From the Sexual Offences Act 2003

>>>3 Sexual assault

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if-

(a) he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b) the touching is sexual,
(c) B does not consent to the touching, and
(d) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable-

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years. <<<

As far as I am concerned if I give a permission to a security person to physically search me I am not reasonably expecting that search to include a search of my genitals. If that person is doing it delibrately and not accidently then it must be sexually motivated. If it happens to me I am calling the police. It may be difficult to prove and may go nowhere but that is not my problem. My duty is to report the crime.

[A and C]

Most of the policemen that I know have a very low opinion of minority of security operatives that abuse the limmited powers that they have and would be more than happy to take action if the case warants it.

It is hard to make a charge of sexual nature stick in these cases but a charge of common assault would be the way to go after all you could push the sexual nature of the assault in court without having to proove that this was in the mind of the person commiting the offence.

The advantage of getting the police involved is that it makes it very hard for the airport authoritys to sweep the inccident under the carpet (in my case 4 months to get a reply from the BAA is just downright rude) and if you are not happy with the way the police deal with the problem then there is a proper way to deal with your dis-satisfaction, something that is sadly lacking with airport security systems.

What gives me the most cause for concern is the fact that I now see "airport security" as the enemy, they abuse me and make it very hard to do my job with pointless "local rules" that I am expected to know dispite the fact that I may have never visited that airport before and then that get abusive because I dont know the "local rule" that they are so keen to enforce.

Real security in depth can only happen if ALL the staff are on side, unfortunatly the DfT have set up a system that has so alienated most of the airport staff that the LAST peope that we would turn to if we suspected sonething was not right would be the airport security staff.

I urge you all to report ALL inccidents to CHIRP and BALPA and make the security industrys life a pain when they have to deal with the paperwork that is raised, that is the only way to get this system sorted out................ and it might just improve security by getting the "industry" and security pulling in the same direction, but the security industry has to win back the respect of all in aviation and in that they have a monumental uphill task !

[Symbian]

Apologies LIMA OR ALHPA JUNK I have only just seen your post and thank you HOTMETAL for the answer. I was informed myself by an airport police sergeant who was very keen for me to press charges. Now that I have availed myself of the full facts I will have no hesitation in demanding a full apology and see the individual removed from duty. Their other choice will be for me to call the police and press charges as others have mentioned complaining to the security management is a waste of time. As the management don’t want to upset them in case they go on strike which would result in airport closure.

So as far as I am concerned now I don’t speak to them I never go through alone or allow my crew to. So if there is an incident there are witnesses especially as I had to defend a colleague who was accused by security of something he didn’t do and that’s all the proof I need that some of them will lie to protect themselves.

I also file CHIRPS and MOR if serious enough and am quite prepared to call the police if there is a need. I already have one guard who won’t come anywhere near me which suits me fine. But I always stay in control I never lose my rag I just state facts as I will not give them the satisfaction of taking my pass.

[rubik101]

I just recieved this from the DoT.
My initial queries can be guessed at by the content of the mail.

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your e-mail dated 1 May 2007 about aviation security. In your e-mail you queried why personal searches and restrictions on liquids apply to aircrew and raised concerns about the conduct of certain airport security staff.

All passengers and staff (including flight crew) who seek to enter the restricted zone of airports in the UK are subject to the same mandatory security arrangements. The reason for this is that there are no guarantees that people, even those from the most respected professions, would never be involved in supporting terrorism, whether deliberate or unintended. If the August alert taught us anything it is that terrorists are continually looking for new ways of attacking aircraft and circumventing security. It is clear that where they identify a weakness they will seek to exploit it. If flight deck crew were allowed to take any liquids through the search point into the RZ then it may be seen as weakness in the overall security regime and could be exploited. It is therefore important that the security regulations apply equally to all.

You criticise aircrew screening as not being worthwhile, because pilot's have control of an aircraft full of fuel that in a worst case scenario can be used as a weapon. As you say that is a possibility but not a likely event. I cannot accept that as an argument for not having other measures, as it ignores the fact that there are other scenarios that the security measures aim to mitigate. Our measures have to be robust enough to prevent a range of unlawful eventualities.

As regards background checks I can confirm that all staff working in the RZ of an airport and undertaking security activities are subject to mandatory screening to ensure that they are suitable for undertaking their tasks. I also confirm that staff who carry out the searching and screening procedures are themselves subject to the same search and screening before entry to the RZ is permitted and are subject to the same limitations on what they may take into the RZ of an airport. Furthermore, control authority staff including Department for Transport officials involved in ensuring that the regulations are complied with and implemented correctly are subject to the same requirements.
I note your comments about the conduct and behaviour of screening personnel. You will appreciate that this is the responsibility of the airport as their employer and as such any such concerns you have should be addressed to the airport.

Yours sincerely,

Dharam Singh

For
James Chan
Aviation Security (Domestic) Branch
Transport Security & Contingencies Directorate
Department for Transport
Zone 5/13, Southside
105 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6DT
Tel: 020 7944 8562

[HZ123]

So despite all the many moans not a bad letter with a reasoned response. As for the suggestion that the security staff are perverts and regularly assault crew or airport staff / passengers i have never heard such a load of tosh. Find something else to complain about.

[Fly Ginger]

who exactly............. the many people here who have bothered to put their feelings on this site, a professional pilots web forum. Sure there will the odd rant, but like your response, 'balanced and reasoned'...........??

Fly Ginger

[FlexibleResponse]

You criticise aircrew screening as not being worthwhile, because pilot's have control of an aircraft full of fuel that in a worst case scenario can be used as a weapon. As you say that is a possibility but not a likely event. I cannot accept that as an argument for not having other measures, as it ignores the fact that there are other scenarios that the security measures aim to mitigate.

signed,
Director of the Ministry of Obfuscation and Bull****

PS. Who knows what psychological damage can be wrought by crazed nail-clipper armed aircrew? "As you say that is a possibility but not a likely event."

[stellair]

HZ123, you're a fool and clearly only see security at ONE uk airfield, if anyone doesn't believe me check his post history on freight dogs.

That letter answers F.A

We are still waiting for answers from you to justify your wild claims about professional pilots on a professional pilots forum. Foxtrot Oscar off to the spectators balcony......Remember this...

Futhermore I have little sympathy with crews as they in themselves pose a threat to each other particularly with the ethnic diversity within the UK alone.......still waiting.......


...Are you a failed pilot?:mad:

[sky9]

Would someone like to explain if and why the security and background checks are different for prospective employees who have lived all their lives in the UK and those who have recently arrived?

[Fly Ginger]

stellair................ i'm with you on your last post. would be interested to hear a response from hz123.............:ooh:

[spud]

Have to agree with stellair. The letter writer answered the questions posed to HIS entire satisfaction.
As for HZ:ugh:

[unwiseowl]

I have seen security staff at MAN stroll airside without being screened themselves, at shift change.

[judge11]

The DfT's reply can be ripped apart line by line. The twisted logic and total refusal to accept the ineffectual reality of the UK's US driven window-dressing security is symptomatic of the bureaucratic nightmare of a machine that has been created under the banner of the 'war agagainst terror'.

[cwatters]

> Would someone like to explain if and why the security and
> background checks are different for prospective employees
> who have lived all their lives in the UK and those who have
> recently arrived?

Why should they be different? If there is one thing that we've learnt in recent years it's that terrorists can be home grown. Three out of the four July 7th bombers were British. Born and educated here.

[non iron]

Squarely on the head with that one.
The fact is it`s cheaper. X number of bodies needed to keep the shops turning over, keep " security " staffed - can`t speak english ? just take the money and keep `em coming.
Requests to Discovery Scotland ? Brilliant ! been in the country for ten days, not a problem unless you stole a car - and got caught - on your way to the interview, which won`t have hit the system by then anyway.
Unfortunately, the law abiding ethnics with proper addresses and utility bills et al, have to account for every day of the last five years despite death and illness of ex employers,etc.
We are probably whisteling in the wind with this one, but obviously it will be 2012 afore we hear the lilt of eastern european accents in OUR secure areas won`t it ?

[stator vane]

last time i had to use them for a badge for STN, i had been resident in a house i purchased for over a year--yeah, i know it was in Haverhill, but someone had to live there!

they came back with a notice, that they were unable to confirm my current address and could i please send them a recent utility bill?? i even called them and asked if it needed to be an original. NO--i could sent a copy. i hung up and laughed!!!

what kind of security company is that??? they cannot confirm a house i had purchased over a year ago???

so someone is in bed with someone else and getting 35 pounds a lick to a company that needs us to send a copy of a utility bill to get us a badge for airside STN!!!!

it still puzzles me as to what that activity actually accomplished. apart from easy money for them.

[Blackball]

Interesting letter Rubik 101, but pray can someone please tell me why Edinburgh allows inbound passengers to mingle with outbound passengers in the "Airside" area. Surely this is not just a smalkl hole in the security system but a GAPPING GAP. The security section are worried that aircrew may bring in something from abroad where according to them security is lax so that Aircrew need to be searched on arrival if staying airside. However passengers travelling from the same lax foriegn airports are allowed to mix and mingle with outgoing passengers and so could pass on anything.
What is going on?
Is the tail wagging the dog again?

[Floppy Link]

...they came back with a notice, that they were unable to confirm my current address and could i please send them a recent utility bill??...

happened to a former colleague of mine, he rang them up and said something along the lines of...

"well, I'm calling you 'cos I got your letter, and if I got your letter then you must have sent it to the address with me at it, so we've just confirmed the address, haven't we?"

It worked. He'd been at that address for several years IIRC. :rolleyes:

[Knold]

I'll sign a protest list anyday

[flying for fun]

Chaps

You may have missed the point here...

Part of the role of a security organisation is to make the place appear that it is secure.

Thus, everytime that you complain about the mindlessness of security - either the process of getting a pass, or that the pass doesn't really count for anything and that you are subject to mindless checks, you are confirming that the current process works...

Why - because the idea is to make it LOOK secure - and therefore deter some (and not all) potential threats.

:=

[Symbian]

No "flying for fun" I think it is you that has missed the point of this thread!

Pointless security is just that pointless!

[stellair]

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/airside/

[PGA]

Does anybody know what the latest score is on contactlense solution at BAA Airports?

[non iron]

Scottish Disclosure still profitable.
Have we become numb or have things improved ?

[vref+10]

I've recently had to apply for an airside pass at JNB. Had to fill in a form and give permission for the South African Police Services and their minions to do a background check for a criminal record amongst, God knows what, other things.

The self same Police Service is headed by a National Commissioner, who has publicly gone on record as being a good personal friend of a South African "businessman," ("they often drink tea together"), currently under house arrest and facing a murder rap as well as illegal drug smuggling (R250 million, a new SA record I believe) charges.

The accused is using him as a character reference and the commissioner has supported his "friend" in his endevours before the courts. The really scary thing is that he sees nothing wrong (Hello! Conflict of interest.) with this scenario and neither do his bosses, the Minister of Safety and Security as well as the President.

The lunatics are definitely running the asylum around here. "Viva ANC viva!" "Amandla!" and all that other cr*p. Sleep tight South Africa, your police force is on guard!

[cessnapete]

Positioned through Gatwick yesterday. At long last more than one bag rule has been implemented by BAA security. Passed through with 'wheely bag and flight bag, with no problem.

[PGA]

Does anybody happen to know where I can find the latest DfT guidance with regard to positioning before or after a duty?

Somebody told me a while ago that we as crew can use the staff security checkpoints if we position (home) within 24 hours of any flying duty. I am know trying to find where this is exactly written down but the DfT doesn't really offer me any help......

[Nearly Retired]

After three attempts, I finally did retire. Now sleep soundly at night, at home in my own bed, instead of staring blearily at the rising/setting sun. Don't have nightmares about getting through JFK (Immigration won't let you in; Security won't let you out). Don't have to eat junk meals, stay in junk hotels and perpetually dispute the roster with some mean-minded lamebrain in crewing. Enough. Good luck, people.

[easy1]

Makes you wonder why we have security checks before joining an airline really!

[hapzim]

Still can not use the staff channel at LGW. They know all about it but BAA will not authorise the use for crew.

For Flight Crew with a ‘Full UK issued ID Card;

Operating, Positioning and Commuting crew will, providing they are travelling within the 24 hour period preceding or following a duty - be treated as ‘staff’ ie Operating Flight Crew, for the purpose of security screening. (ie you will be allowed more than one bag through security – essentially as if you are operating)

You do not have to be in uniform but - You must have with you and display, your ID Card. You should be able to provide evidence of your roster. (This should only be requested by security staff to check that you are indeed travelling within 24H of a duty as above, or if there is any doubt as to your status in relation to this).

In addition;

Crew should, where possible - use a ‘Staff or Crew channel’.



Have not tried 2 bags.

[PGA]

@ Mike,
Thanks a lot for this information, very usefull indeed. I have managed on one occasion to get through staff security in the south terminal while positioning out on duty, this was in uniform and the security staff still weren't best pleased with my appearance.

I think I might e-mail this DfT guy and see what the actual score is for LGW. If I do get a reply before my planned retirement date I will let you guys know.

[multiman]

Hi everybody,

My first post about "crew security". Until yesterday my opinion was : "I can not change, try to accept."
But yesterday I had the following experience:
I was positioning crew to London traveled with my ID in my neck. When I passed the security the passenger in front of me hade a small knife in his hand bag. Short discussion between the secutity guys, quickly compared the knife to ID card's size. To my surprise they accepted because it was shorter than ID card!!! :ugh:
Of course no liquids allowed to bring with you because it is dangerous.
Anybody can tell me what is the maximum size of knife which is allowed on board?

Thanks forward

[cessnapete]

Been through LGW a number of times recently as pos crew with 2 bags. Not allowed to use Crew Channels but all OK through normal pax security, they know the rules.

[bushbolox]

Yes but since the latest edict by BAA anyone whose ID (uk or not) is not compatible ith BAA system (BA EASY ETC) then you are considered foreign crew and thus only have the privilages of normal pax when positioning.IE pax gates only and one bag.
Dontcha lov em

[cessnapete]

Not true, in my experience at LGW and LHR. Although you cannot use crew channels unless you have 'resident crew ID' ie based at said airport. BAA will let you go through normal pax security with 2 bags with a crew ID (Mine is Farnborough)
Some times security helpers in initial screening unaware of new crew rule, ask for supervisor.
Had to convince one supervisor that Fboro was not RAF only, initally acused me of trying to abuse system!

[bushbolox]

Erm true,
I only have company acn so I wont post that. If it doesnt swipe you are foreign. If you are not operating that means you are pax end of.

[cessnapete]

My UK ID only swipes at my home airfield, that is why you go through pax security at BAA airport. The 2 bag rule does work, went through LGW pax security as positioning crew yesterday, no problem.

[Anti-ice]

The two bag rule doesn't work, as for example, an A320 overhead locker is for 9 peoples luggage - so 4 bags will fill it up - that's two peoples baggage :ugh:

Handbaggage is the bain of most cabin crew's lives , airlines do not take the issue seriously and with short turnarounds many aircraft push back with people still standing up and bags unstowed due to crammed overhead lockers.

People should only be allowed 1 piece and 1 much smaller one that will fit under the seat.

There are many wheelies on the market that are oversized too - and only fit in the locker lengthways - this should be removed for the hold at the gate.

[Orographic]

No doubt that this has been found before this posting, but this piece published in the New Zealand Herald is interesting.

It is after a more general angle though, and not just crew, so apologies if I am posting it in the wrong place

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10483704

Text as below ( complete with original spelling, before someone pings that ) :


Airport security lines can annoy passengers, but there is no evidence that they make flying any safer, US researchers reported on Thursday.A team at the Harvard School of Public Health could not find any studies showing whether the time-consuming process of X-raying carry-on luggage prevents hijackings or attacks.
They also found no evidence to suggest that making passengers take off their shoes and confiscating small items prevented any incidents.
The US Transportation Security Administration told research teams requesting information their need for quick new security measures trumped the usefulness of evaluating them, Eleni Linos, Elizabeth Linos, and Graham Colditz reported in the British Medical Journal.
"We noticed that new airport screening protocols were implemented immediately after news reports of terror threats," they wrote.
"Even without clear evidence of the accuracy of testing, the Transportation Security Administration defended its measures by reporting that more than 13 million prohibited items were intercepted in one year," the researchers added. "Most of these illegal items were lighters."


The researchers said it would be interesting to apply medical standards to airport security. Screening programmes for illnesses like cancer are usually not broadly instituted unless they have been shown to work.
"We'd like airport security screening to be of value. As passengers and members of the public we'd like to know the evidence and the reasoning behind these measures," Linos said in a telephone interview.
With US$5.6 billion ($7.47 billion) spent globally on airport protection each year, the public should be encouraged to query some screening requirements - such as forcing passengers to remove their shoes, the researchers said.
"Can you hide anything in your shoes that you cannot hide in your underwear?" they asked.
A TSA spokesman was not immediately available to comment.


While I agree with most of the points the author raises, I can't in good conscious, support encouraging members of the public haggling their way past security check-points.

After all, they are their for a reason, we just wish that they were effective and efficient as well, ... don't we?

[rubik101]

and they lifted it from Reuters, which is a site I can recommend for impartial(ish) news.
http://www.reuters.com/article/basicindustries-SP-A/idUSN2022861820071221

[belfrybat]

The whole thing reminds me about the madman in the asylum who kept clapping his hands all day. The new doctor asks why he does that.

"It's to keep the elephants away".
"But, but, there are no elephants here."
"See, it works!", :D:D:D

:)

[glad rag]

Profiling, profiling, profiling......

[Skylark58]

NY Times article:


http://jetlagged.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/the-airport-security-follies/?em&ex=1199250000&en=32fb97e269ddd12d&ei=5087

[DeltaIndiaSierraPapa]

Ultimately airport security is a joke and complete WINDOW DRESSING. It is not in the least bit effective. Security checkpoints are there to make Granny flying once a year or so feel safe as she can actually SEE them doing something..

At the airport I work at, Security representatives (I wont call them "officers" as that implies a reasonable amount of training and expertise, let alone professionalism) ask you (staff at the staff channel) if they can inspect items at random (radio, jacket, folder, rucksack etc). This is not done for the sake of random inspections to thwart terrorist plots, to keep themselves and there procedures non-routine and unpredictable. No, this is done because the government has set them TARGETS of a certain number of items that they have to look at each bloody hour! They pick up a radio adn look at it in the most cursory way and say to there mate with the tally shhet "One radio..." They never look to see if it actually WORKS. For all they know it could be a bloody empty plastic case filled with semtex!

[Desperate]

Skylark58

That article should be copied worldwide - summed it up perfectly. It should line the walls of every search point in every airport, but it won't of course.

Yet still we endure this daily crap

Thank you.

[fendant]

Yep, profiling it is, here is how it works in the US:

a)Alien ( this is American for a non US citizen ) , considered a 80% terrorist => you get one S on your profile

b) Booking an airline ticket through internet,giving a non US adress alarm starts ringing
=> you get a second S on your profile

c)Paying with a non US credit card = > you get your third S in your profile

d)booking a one way trip => you get your SSSS on your boarding pass and are elevated to " special treatment " when you get to security, prolonging the "intensive search " by .5 - 1hour

Good thing you meet a lot of fellow Europeans whilst waiting in line who are all treated the same way. The only Americans you meet are the intelligent TSA people who are searching though your dirty underwear.

When I book through a US company credit card with my US driver licence, SSSS boarding passes never happen.

US citizen good guy = European citizen bad guy

Frank

[Diaz]

Obviously youve never seen what happens if you also have a muslim name.:sad:

[Skylark58]

I did post this on another thread, but it's worth repeating: a friend of mine was flying back from a US trip, PHL to LHR and had a brand new Laptop and a £1000 microphone stolen from his checked and TSA screened baggage. Discussion with the Philadelphia police department revealed that the unions there block the installation of CCTV in the baggage sorting area. So someone screening the bags puts a discreet mark on a bag that is 'of interest' and away go the valuables? .Perhaps.....

Theft is one thing, but if it is possible for something to be removed from a bag, then a bomb can equally well be put in. Meanwhile 'security' upstairs are more concerned about the Captains contact lens solution.:ugh:

[fendant]

Hi Diaz,

guess we will meet at the "special area":).
I am not sure if the TSA guys know the differences between Al Bert and Albert.

However the good news is that about 60.000 overweight, underpaid and underintelligent people are now getting free health care and better pay.

Ok, some might still be tempted to cream off a little bit more from the luggage contents as skylark suggests.

Frank

[CONF iture]

Good article Skylark
The Airport Security Follies (http://jetlagged.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/the-airport-security-follies/?em&ex=1199250000&en=32fb97e269ddd12d&ei=5087)

No wonder that "Comments are no longer being accepted" after only one day, I've been through most of the 334 comments and could not find more than 10 of them disagreeing with Mr Smith.

Crews and passengers know what it's all about ...

[Jay Arr]

Well, here's a new one:

Just before Xmas I was departing LHR for HKG. Passed through the T4 crew security channel and my bag containing my DSLR was detained by security. The camera gear comprises a Nikon D200, 2 lenses and a flash. Security asked whether the camera was for personal or operational reasons. Puzzled, I said personal; not going to lie about that anyway. They then stated crew are not permitted to take cameras through unless it's for operational reasons.

I stood my ground and a supervisor from the remote office was summoned. There ensued a very unpleasant 10 minute standoff/altercation where they wouldn't yield. I pointed out, and received acknowledgment from these, "people", that passengers were permitted to take cameras! So why not crew?! Oh, and that cameras are not prohibited items; indeed LHR rules state to carry them in your hand luggage. Oh and that I've been carrying the exact same camera kit through LHR all year, no drama before. Oh and that I could buy the exact same camera duty free once through security!

Anyway, they finally got on the radio to a fourth level of security hierarchy, who when asked if crew could take cameras airside, stated, "Oh yes, that's ok!"

Chased it up with my management when I got home. Management got onto LHR management and determined that there is a restriction on RETAIL staff taking cameras airside, but no such restriction applies to crew. The excuse? There are new/inexperienced staff at the security points and it was probably a misunderstanding. Well, you'd think the supervisors on the points would know the rules.

All very unpleasant and frankly, is nothing short of harassment of crew prior to operating. Threatening to separate crew from $1000's of dollars worth of breakable and attractive assets (from theft pov), is a safety issue. I was furious and distracted during the actual takeoff/departure by this. Security value added? Zilch. Impact on safety? Significant.

Next time I will just walk away and someone else can sort it all out.

I'm still considering whether to submit a safety report to the Aussie CASA and/or UK CAA, if nothing else for info/statistics. The boss is a bit tied up with -400 electrical issues down here just at the moment, though....

For now, this post is to highlight yet another disgraceful security situation wrt crew and to ensure we all know our rights.

[IcePack]

Submit the MOR/ASR.
At the momement in the UK TRANSEC believe their are no problems with security or their affect on flight safety as they have no reports of any problems.

[K.Whyjelly]

Agree with the above......submit ASR/MOR and also e-mail a report to CHIRP who are building up a database of such events thus allowing TRANSEC know about these problems

[Bomber Harris]

jay arr,
great post. summarises what we are feeling. i think you should make an issue of it. don't get yourself in trouble mate, run it past your boss that you are going to submit a report and get him onside. then submit an sair and chirp report. thats the kind of solid data needed to back up the rubbish treatment we all go through.