Frustrated (?) pilots and security screening

[verticalhold]

Rsuggitt;

Please go away. You obviously know little or nothing. The photo on an airside pass is not your usual polaroid c***. The card carries electronic information as well as the very clever picture. This is not about bruised ego's it's about sheer stupidity.

Please spare us any more of your ignorance and go and join the equivelent site for your profession.

VH

[rsuggitt]

Well I'm very happy to live and learn, but as for "Please go away" the answer is a polite "no". Regardless of my background, it's been interesting to see the differences of opinion regarding potential security threats and the means to deter them. You probably think I'm being unrealistically pessimistic about the situation and to be honest, I hope you're right. Trouble is, you need more than just hope. And for the pilots (for whom I did express my respect, if you remember) it's worth saying that of course you actually are the most important person on the plane. But for that reason, rather than security checks being more cursory, they need to be more thorough. At least in m opinion.

[S76Heavy]

Nobody objects to the more thorough bit, just to the way they are being conducted at present, which are mere lip service to safety and a huge unnecessary inconvenience to boot. Which has its own safety implications, by the way.

As soon as you realise that, I think the viewpoints are not that far apart.

[TACHO]

At the end of the day rsuggitt, you are more than welcome to have an opinion, however when you are dictating to people who do this for a living it becomes a little harder to swallow. It is exactly the point that it doesnt effect your day to day working life, whereas for us, it certainly does.
By all means keep your opinion and points of view however i would recommend against coming onto the Pilots forum and reading out the riot act, just as I wouldnt dream of going into say... a forum for professional musicians and telling them everything I thought I knew about music.:), trust me on that, my CD collection is horrendous.

People are not complaining about the security as a whole, more the inconcistencies that seem to exist from person to person, which vary from very professional attitudes to downright obnoxious. As somebody at the sharp end I appreciate more than anyone the high priority ensuring flight safety, however this should not come at the detriment of treating proffesionals (not just pilots might I add) with a little bit of respect as people.


Tacho

[MaxReheat]

Mr Ruggitt
Let's try and make this as simple as possible. You go to work, I take it; perhaps at the same establishment for the past 5, 10 or 15 years? Today the Department for The Terminally Insane isuues a nationwide edict (and manages to coerce similar departments all over the world) that denies you the ability to bring a yoghurt to work as part of your packed lunch. Despite working at said establishment day in, day out for the past 5/10/15 years you and your yoghurt are deemed a security threat.
You have been nothing less than a law abiding citizen over that period, have perhaps given gallant service to the employer and held the highest of offices in that organisation...........and suddenly, you are deemed a security threat by a faceless, deskbound twerp at the DfTTI. You will probably feel peeved and disillusioned. You may even question why your yoghurt is considered such a threat to the security of the your fellow workers and, indeed, the state itself.
You know you are not a threat, your company knows you are not a threat; yet you are deemed as a threat in the confused and dillusional mind of the twerp at the DfTTI.
Quite a ridiculous and farcical situation isn't it; laughable, in fact. Yet that is the reality of so-called airport security for the tens of thousands of law abiding, security vetted workers at the world's airports.:ugh:

[jshg]

Just remember Trident G-ARPI. Stress before flight caused the Captain to have a heart attack, after aggravating a previously unknown heart condition. 116 died.
Try as we might to not rise to the Security bait, sooner or later some new humiliation will be sprung upon someone who will argue. Assuming the arrest/breathalyser/DNA-taking/charges dropped is over quickly, the pilot will end up at the controls in a stressed state. No doubt rsruggit and friends will deny all responsibility for any ensuing disaster.

[rsuggitt]

"Try as we might to not rise to the Security bait, sooner or later some new humiliation will be sprung upon someone who will argue. Assuming the arrest/breathalyser/DNA-taking/charges dropped is over quickly, the pilot will end up at the controls in a stressed state. No doubt rsruggit and friends will deny all responsibility for any ensuing disaster."

Please look back over my posts and you'll see that I have more than once said that if you feel the security setup is not working, you should be able to fix it. I've not said that you have to stick with it forever.

"Just remember Trident G-ARPI. Stress before flight caused the Captain to have a heart attack, after aggravating a previously unknown heart condition. 116 died."

Well that stress didnt come from a rude an impolite security screening, it came from an argument in the crew room (according to the official report). But of course, this is something that we'd all want to avoid. I dont know how many people died in 9/11, but I'm sure we'd all want to avoid anyhting like that occuring again also. Does anyone disagree.

In fact, let's try to cool this down by establishing some common ground. So let me ask a direct question of everyone. Is there anyone who does not support the idea of attempting to avoid terrorist incidents ?

[jshg]

I'm sure we're all very comforted to know that it wasn't a Security argument that brought down PI .......
An argument is an argument. It is standard aviation practice as a result to avoid arguments before flying duty. The current rules are made/enforced by people without aviation training.
We know the Security set up is not fit for purpose but we can't (yet) fix it because those who enforce Security procedures are working to a political agenda rather than a safety agenda. Hence this thread.

[TACHO]

Sruggit,

its not your place to comment, you don't experience it, except for maybe once a year when you tootle off on your jollies. you aren't the one who has to work to nearly 100% capacity after these farcical checks that actually do very little for safety at all.

saying well it prevents another 9/11 is folly. Scanning a qualified, airline employed, security screened, background checked professional pilot is not relevant to preventing terrorism, I'm sorry no it isnt..

I am inclined to agree with the sentiments of vertical hold. Your opinion matters not in here good fellow. As vertical hold said, I think you should go and enforce your opinions on a website that is more suited to your own profession, this is a pilots forum, for pilots, by pilots and if pilots wanna moan, even those with monstrous ego's, by crikey we'll moan!
tacho

[Livinginthepast]

Any pilot refusing to comply with any reasonable security request should be disciplined and on a repeat offence dismissed. The only area of question is the reasonable nature of the request. They should be correctly subject to at least the same screening as passengers.

[rsuggitt]

MaxReheat

"The Terminally Insane isuues a nationwide edict (and manages to coerce similar departments all over the world) that denies you the ability to bring a yoghurt to work as part of your packed lunch. Despite working at said establishment day in, day out for the past 5/10/15 years you and your yoghurt are deemed a security threat. "

Please dont think I'm unsympathetic to the situation. The changes you describe (and the irritation therewith) have not come about because of anything you've done. Or because of anything you have failed to do. Or done wrong.
They've come about because things that we cant control or influence have changed. They've come about because of increased levels of violence around the world, of increased fear, of increased political involvement in countries far away and about which we know little.

I'm afraid that both you and I have to live with the change, as much as we dont like it. In fact, the only thing we can change ourselves is our attitude towards such things.

[rsuggitt]

1) "its not your place to comment"
This is an open public forum. The whole world can read it and as it has no security of its own anyone has the technical ability to post. If you want a private forum, implement something that is secured.

2) Despite your dislike for what I've said, please take a look at what I've said and tell me in what respects I am mistaken. Tell me what the flaws in my arguments are.

3) "I am inclined to agree with the sentiments of vertical hold. Your opinion matters not in here good fellow. "
If I irritate you that much, dont bother to reply. If you cannot discuss or construct a case based on intellectual grounds, you do yourself a disservice by dismissing my argumemnts simply by saying I shouldnt be here.

By the way, no-one so far has agreed that we should try to prevent terrorist activities. Interesting.

[Nils Taurus Excretus]

Please remember that all this so called 'improved' security post SEP11 is primarily to protect us, the PIC and his F/O, from unlawful interference.

Also, the terrorists we are up against are highly motivated, intelligent and well trained and if anyone thinks that the recent changes in security procedures (a la LAGS etc) are actually going to stop someone blowing up an aeroplane then you have your head up your proverbial desk bound A##

The crap about binary explosives is just that .. Anyone with some very basic chemistry can tell you the outlined scenarios are fiction.

It is all just more scaremongering to keep the population as a whole afraid thereby providing bureaucrats the opportunity to further limit our freedoms.

Get real folks. The bad guys have won.

Now just let my colleagues and I get on with the task of safely piloting thousands of people around the globe.

[TACHO]

Ok, point taken.:ugh:. However the main purpose of this thread is to discuss security, not whether you have a right to post in the aircrew forum. Not saying that you don't, however dont get worked up when people give less attention to your point of view:rolleyes:.

you ask for examples of where I may possibly think you are mistaken,

Please look back over my posts and you'll see that I have more than once said that if you feel the security setup is not working, you should be able to fix it.

It seems to me that the whole point of this thread is people discussing how things should be 'fixed'. The current practices in place are not working. You have failed to answer how getting a pilot to remove his shoes and bare the soles of his feet is making anybody any safer?. several posters have already commented that the increase in stress levels to aircrew is having a detremental effect on flight safety, and thats not paraphrased....read a chirp bulletin.

It is mentioned several times previously that most aircrew seem to be at a loss to expalin the inconsistencies from day to day,It would be more understandable if these procedures were uniform across the board however they are not, in your own posts you state

One way to make weaknesses is to make exceptions. And as soon as you make a weakness that is visible to a potential terrorist

If by exceptions you mean treating people differently then this is already an everyday occurence.

By the way, no-one so far has agreed that we should try to prevent terrorist activities. Interesting

well of course they haven't, its a foregone conclusion that no professional pilot (or indeed anyone else for that matter) would even need to think about the answer to that question.

Right thats it now. had enough

Tacho....OUT

[jshg]

And how about these latest so-called "Security Briefings" we are having to sign for at LGW/LTN/MAN and presumably everywhere else ?
They are puerile, simplistic, pointless scraps of non-information produced by some jobsworth, which don't cover even 10% of the information in our approved Security Manuals which we're regularly tested on.
Yet at LGW we risk having our IDs (and therefore livelihoods) cancelled if we don't sign as having read and understood them.

[flash8]

"Just remember Trident G-ARPI. Stress before flight caused the Captain to have a heart attack, after aggravating a previously unknown heart condition. 116 died."
Get real mate. If you read the AAIB report you'll probably know (as most of us do who appreciate such things) that Keys contribution to the accident has always been undetermined. The crew room argument (supposedly corroborated by impressionable S/O's) was never really a factor.And it was 118. RIP.

[FLCH]

Not to drift here, but why are you not as a flight deck crewmember allowed to bring a flight bag, an overnight bag and a computer ? There's plenty of room in the cockpit, I know about stuffing your computer into your overnight bag and that works, but whats the logic behind it. Incidentally I did get into a "disagreement" with a staff security screener in the UK as my F/O and I had computer bags, we were told to check them. Instead I told my First to check in his flight bag and I would do the same and our security screener would have to answer to my airline as to why my flight wasn't leaving anytime soon. We were then summarily dismissed with a "I'll overlook it this time". I must admit it stayed on my mind till we got to 30W, (about 2-3 hours into the flight). Now days I pack accordingly and stuff my computer in my bag.

[despegue]

Last week, in DUB, the screeners wanted to see my Logbook. I asked if they were CAA inspectors, to which I got a negative reply. I thus refused.
They subsequently didn't want to let me through, after which I told them to write-down the reason not to allow me to my aircraft and send it to the CAA and my airline. I also told them to show in writing on which rule they based their request to oblige me to show my logbook. They then immediately let me through. Pathetic.
DO NOT ALLOW ANY CRAP FROM SECURITY.

[7Q Off]

Screening to pilots is useless. I have an AXE in the cockpit. I think is a more efective weapon than my 150 cl perfume. Period.

[gb777]

At the Airport, You Better Smile
'Behavior Detection Officers' are now watching passengers' facial expressions for signs of danger


by Patti Davis

Global Research, August 18, 2007
Newsweek, Web Edition



It's a new level of absurdity for America.

It was bound to happen. Now even a frown or grimace can get you into trouble with The Man.

"Specially trained security personnel" will be watching passengers for "micro-expressions" that will reveal treacherous agendas and insidious intentions at airports around the country. These agents, who may literally hold your fate in their hands have been given a lofty, Orwellian name: "Behavior Detection Officers."

Did anyone ever doubt that George Orwell's prophecies in "1984" would

arrive? In that novel, he wrote, "You had to live-did live, from habit that became instinct-in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized."

In the study of "micro-expressions"-yes, it is actually a field of study and there are some who are arrogant enough to call it a science- it has been decided that when people wish to conceal emotions, the truth of their feelings is revealed in facial flashes. These experts have determined that fear and disgust are the key things to look for because they can hint of deception.

Let's see, fear and disgust in an airport? I'm frightened and disgusted weeks before I have to show up at an airport. In fact, I've pretty much sworn off the whole idea of going anywhere by airplane. It's bad enough that I might be trapped in a crowded plane with no food or water and nonworking toilets for hours; now there are security agents interpreting our facial expressions. The face police, in place at more than a dozen U.S. airports already, aren't identified as such. But the watcher could be at curbside baggage, the ticket counter or near the metal detectors and X-ray machines. The Transportation Security Administration hopes to have as many as 500 Behavior Detection Officers on the job by the end of 2008.

But what about the woman who is getting on a plane to see a dying relative? Or the man who is traveling to another state to see a cancer specialist in a last bid for extending his life? What about the guy who just had a fight with his spouse and now worries that a plane crash would mean their last words were in anger? We've all had the experience of having a bad day, being in a rotten mood-especially at the airport, which has become a modern-day chamber or horrors. On those days, doesn't it seem like everyone we meet looks sour and unpleasant? The opposite is also true. When we're happy and joyful, we look at others and see happiness in them. Or even if we don't, we look at them kindly and with compassion. It's human nature to look at others through the lens of our own reality.

Here's where it gets really absurd. Apparently, these Behavior Detection Officers work in pairs. One scenario is that an officer might move in to "help" a passenger retrieve their belongings after they've been screened. And then the officer will ask where the passenger is headed. If the passenger's reaction sets off alarm bells in the officer's well-trained mind, another officer will move in and detain them. Let's be really clear here. If a stranger moved in on me like that, I'd tell that person to go to hell, throw in a few other expletives for good measure and probably give them the finger as I stomped off. Of course, I wouldn't be stomping very far.

So while TSA employees are confiscating our scissors and water bottles, they're going to secretly be staring at us, looking for some telltale sign of terrorist intent in a grimace, a sigh, a crinkled nose? Who knows what? In the end, the Behavior Detection Officers are the ones who are really acting suspicious. Which is the truth of the matter anyway.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6576

[Seat1APlease]

The trouble is that airport security always has been a knee-jerk reaction to the last incident, in an attempt to reassure the travelling public that it can't happen again.
The terrorists meantime are planning the next attack on the weakest link. Firstly we had hi-jacking, the response was to introduce screening for weapons on the person. Then we had suicide bombers/9-11 terrorists who were prepared to die in the attempt. So now we have yoghurts and metal spoons banned. Then we had the Glasgow incident and now cars are being kept away from the front entrance to the building. The next incident will doubtless be something new, several of which I can imagine but won't mention here for obvious reasons.
We have to be more forward thinking and looking for the next weak link instead of having all these dim jobsworths going through the motions in the pretence that it is making us safer, when it patently isn't.

[fortuna76]

Well at the topic of security, I guess:

Security does not work. It is for political and not safety purposes. It does not help to take away a bottle of water from a pax and it does not help to take away the nail clippers of a pilot. Come on, we are smart people, all of us. We can figure this out. Why do we have to say: It's in the interest of our safety so it must help. NO IT DOES NOT, AND YOU KNOW IT, WAKE UP!

On the topic of non pilots posting:

Yes this is an open forum and everybody is free to post here. However I believe that a little bit of politeness towards the people for whom this forum was created might be in place. Concidering that most people her would (or should) be pilots, it is bad manners to be insulting us. I do not go on a police officers website screaming what a bunch of loosers they are. Please, let's keep it civilized here, please! :ok:

On the topic of behaviour detectives:

Simply scary...really scary stuff :eek: I just hope it is not true.

[phantomcruiser07]

Apparently the security services will soon start to employ psychics who can detect pax and air crew intentions with magic balls and a feel of the head, they will compliment their new behaviour detection officers.

[Seat1APlease]

Could be worse, it could be a look at the head and a feel of the B****!:ok:

[Mac the Knife]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1172/1202789443_ab6c754626.jpg?v=0

From http://www.flickr.com/photos/justinph/1202789443/ via Boing-Boing

:ok:

[Pilot_in_the_making]

I know this part of the forum is technically for flight crew, but an engineer working on the line I am subject to the same screening process as you people several times a day and as such I think that I'm entitled to an opinion.

Screening of engineers and pilots just does not work. Engineers are allowed to carry leathermans on them, so I have a knife in my pocket and access to the flight deck (as someone has already mentioned the axe) so I could do untold damage. I could cause mayhem with oxygen and nitrogen rigs, I have access to many highly flammable materials to service the aircraft with (oils, cleaning solvants etc), which if compressed into a container with oxygen from the rig it becomes explosive. All the things someone in my position could do if they wanted to, yet I can't carry a bottle of water through. Why? :confused:

Talking to some of the security staff, the problem is that they find it just as frustrating as we do. They are given rules to enforce that many of them think are pointless, but they still have to enforce it because it is their job. It's a pain in the backside for everybody. Unfortunatly, for as long as we have terrorists trying to blow s**t up, we are all going to have to suffer because of some fat t**t who sits behind a desk making rules and never sees the reality of the situation. :ugh:

Although security staff can come across as absolute a$$holes, they have to be that way otherwise some people would take advantage of it and walk all over them. It depends who is on the security gate at the time, but they are human, and many of them do have a sense of humer if you know how to bring it out.

The other week I went landside to get some lunch and tried to take it through the security gate to be told that my baked beans were classed as a liquid and I couldn't take my dinner back to the crew room which was airside. :hmm:

I got a little pissed off and with my usual sarcastic sense of humer I enguaged my mouth before my brain and came out with ''Oh for God sake, can we let common sense prevail here, I've got a leatherman in my pocket, numerous flammable substances in the store room and access to the flight deck. I'm not going to bring an aircraft down by flicking baked beans at it am I?!?!'' :E

At this point, realising what I had just said and fully expecting to be removed from the airport and arrested, I shut up before I could make the situation any worse. The security staff looked at each other, paused as though unsure what to do, then bursed out into floods of laughter before the most senior person on the gate said to me ''You're in luck, that security camera isn't working. I'll turn a blind eye just this once, but be careful saying things like that, you'll end up in trouble''. He then let me through with my dinner. Like I say, it depends who is on duty at the time.

I'm not suggesting that you should say stupid things like that to them because sooner or later you will come across someone without a sense of humer and get yourself in trouble. I was lucky, I got away with it. But if it's not too busy (it was 3am on a night shift, so I was the only person going through the security gate at the time) you can make the whole process slightly less painful by attempting to engage in a conversation, and laughing and joking with them. :D

Remember, many of them although they won't admit it, like many people here, think the rules are ridiculous. Unfortunatly they have a job to do like the rest of us :ok:

[ZeBedie]

''Oh for God sake, can we let common sense prevail here, I've got a leatherman in my pocket, numerous flammable substances in the store room and access to the flight deck. I'm not going to bring an aircraft down by flicking baked beans at it am I?!?!''

I know what you mean, but why should anyone be arrested for stating facts, as you did?

[Pilot_in_the_making]

Several people from our company had caused a bit of a fuss on the security gates and had their passes removed from them in the week leading up to this incident.

One person working on the security gate had even admitted to me that a couple of their staff were unofficially targeting us ''to put us back in our place'' stating that they ''have had a few problems with your engineers recently''. Like I said before, most of the security staff are really nice people if you have a chance to get talking to them, but there are a lot of power crazed lunatics that only do the job to boss people around.

At the time, these power crazed idiots were looking for an excuse to cause us problems. Effectively saying that I had a knife and a means to blow up an aircraft was in my mind a bit like putting a on red T-shirt and running in front of an angry bull. It could be twisted into a threat.

[AlexL]

I've got am idea, which may be more worthy of lobbying the powers that be about, than trying to get security restrictions relaxed:
If we (grudgingly) accept that unfortunately the current security restrictions are going to stay in place for the time being, then what we really need is a scrict 'code of practice' for the security guards. In fact I would go further and wrap it up in some "human rights" context.
If a person deals with the police, as a suspect, as a criminal, as a member of public, then there is a clear and well known set of rights that both sides have, and very strict sanctions if either is broken.
This is what we need at the airports. These security idiots currently break the law (assault, sexual assault, verbal abuse, various means of obstruction) with impunity and yet if we even dare to question then we loose our pass and means to earn a living.
So what we really need to lobby MP's and transec about is not for a relaxation of the security rules, but a strict code of conduct and set of rights for the passengers and crew (and yes, the security prats), and a strict, written down, list of exactly what is and isn't acceptable, so that we don't continue with being allowed to carry yoghurt one day, but not the next.

[RatherBeFlying]

Perfect security would be achieved if all the engineers at a particular threw a tantrum at a security post and got themselves all suspended.

Nothing would fly and everybody could go home including security:E

The trick would be to ensure that any engineers flown in would throw the same tantrum.

[Pilot_in_the_making]

RatherBeFlying,

I like your way of thinking. It means none of us have to come into work. :D

I hate to state the really very obvious, but I've spotted a slight floor in your plan. If none of the aircraft fly then the airline doesn't make any money (not to mention the compensation claims for delaying the passengers) and we all get made redundant. :sad:

The problem then is that I'm without a job so I can't pay for my training and would never achieve my goal of one day flying alongside you guys. :{

It's a nice idea though, I guess we can all dream. Unlimited time off work, and we get paid for it. :ok:

[ShotOne]

Have all the above incidents with security here been reported? The questions I have asked suggests these issues are massively UNDERreported. For instance in the UK there have been 70 CHIRP reports. Surely this should have been 700 or 7000! Why have so few of us reported it officially?

[el #]

Hi Pilot in the Making, wrt the episode you told here, in a democracy everyone is entitled to his own opinions and the right to express them publicly especially when confronted with nonsensical situations, so the security chief giving you a lecture was just acting nazi to re-asses his authority, you haven't committed any offense and I hope you will find the right way to say things firm and clearly next time.

Practical advice, can't you guys work some deal with the catering people or another way to order fresh water and sodas, that you would store just near the flammable liquids perhaps :)

[Red Top Comanche]

Everyone, we have it all wrong.

We should encourage the security people.

Next time Bush is about to board Airforce One, they should run all the staff, security people etc through security. Remove all weapons from their person, remove all bottled water etc, pat down all the female staff, make the pres take his shoes off to have them Xrayed and generally ensure that all the normal procedure are followed,

Do this each and every time and the laws will change....

:D:D

[Shiny side down]

I'm afraid I will have to retain my irritation regarding security.

I find that many of the old faces who were at GLA have a fairly decent professional manner, while some of the more recent recruits hired to go along with the shiny new equipment seem simply to have been hired from the unemployed pub bouncers queue.

In particular, there is one ignorant piece of work who seems to target flight and cabin crew for special treatment. Almost like it's an opportunity for him to 'show us'.

It's a sad but real fact that increased security is necessary. It's also IMHO, obvious that the quality of the people being hired to implement it has become questionable in many cases.

So I would have to ask if the slovenly git who behaves like he wants to pick a fight every time he sees local crew (Americans seem to avoid his treatment) is actually paying any real attention to what is actually going on?

I will say to anyone reading this who chooses to take offence at what I am saying-
Just because increased security is required does not immediately imply that poor recruitment standards for security, crap customer service, disproportionate response, and general open disrespect should become the norm also.

[JamesA]

Shiny side down
Your post reflects the unfortunate side if society we live in. A slight digression - I work for an American carrier and when the good ole US of A started the TSA a colleague remarked at least we will have some properly trained personnel on security now. Not a chance, it was still a bunch of ignorant peasants who had hardly enough grey cells to know how to walk, let alone know about security measures. Now you have the same situation at GLA and many other UK airports. Why? The old story - pay bottom wage and you will only get what is under the barrel. As we used to Say in the RAF -'Naafi' - i.e. for the uninitiated 'No ambition and F***all interest'. If you cannot get the level of people to fill a position, then lower the standards until you do. Hence that is what we are left with. The latest I have heard is the TSA now requires a 'guard' at the aircraft at all times, like the Israelis have. The next step will be a personal escort to and from said aircraft, bet they won't carry the bags.
Keep safe, stay sane. Off to take on a security dept.

[KOLDO]

Hi everybody,
I wonder if someone can provide with any law, or whatever. about the private personnel at screening pionts.
This is because in some parts of Europe, they are merely "auxiliary staff" backing-up state or local police forces. So if you disagree, you always can call "the real guys".
This has quite a few effects, :
Maybe to calm down the "beyond duty guys", maybe to cut down absurde abuses, etc. or maybe not, but at least something is something.
My doubts about a guy or girl, invested by some hidden attributions. If it is the case, even myself can hand check everybody.
I think it is very important to provide all of us, includin tech guys who go very often to the airside, wuith any sort of written code or procedures to avoid this ***pain.
Any ideas ??

[doubledolphins]

I do get the impression that the security people are more interested in catching out people who have more interesting jobs than they do rather than catching terrorists.
Yes I know they will deny it but until things change that is how it looks from where I am standing, (On a dirty rubber mat, in my socks)
Customs used to be our worst nightmare until they realised, about 15 years ago, that if they were nice to us we might help them catch the real bad guys.
Yes I know that if a Customs officer is unlucky once some contraband enters the country and they will get them some other time. The terrorist only has to be lucky once.
But, and it's a big one, Customs Officers are alowed to use a bit of common sense,intelligence and hunches in their choices. PC does not affect their choice of suspect.

[Che Guevara]

Had a new one in CDG last week. Our crew all dutifully took off their shoes as requested and put them through the scanner etc. However, being the last in line, I noticed that none of the passengers behind us were asked to remove their shoes.....couldn't help asking the security experts about this....their reply was that all uniform shoes have metal in them!
Oh well, I sighed and went off to my to the cockpit to see if the fire-axe was in place....;)

[AAA737300BF]

When asked to take off your shoes, did anyone ask the screeners when the floor was cleaned and disinfected last time? I always see many people walking in shoes through security, but barely see the walking area cleaned and disinfected. So, when asked to take shoes off, look at the floor ahead of you if it is clean or dirty. I prefer the area I walk over to be cleaned and disinfected since I do not know if one of the persons that walked there ahead of me has swetting feet or a disease like an Athlete's foot or similar. Can the security screener guarantee that I am safe of catching any disease at this point when I am forced to walk through there on socks or bare feet? edited for typos...

[Antdenatale]

I Witnessed this fiasco for myself this week and must say I do feel sorry for you guys.

I was sitting in the at the gate in departure lounge near the security in DXB when the crew for our flight came through, each and everyone had to take shoes and belt off then have bags etc x-rayed. One of the cabin crew were even taken aside for further screening.

Some of the passengers even commented on why did the Pilot need to go through the screening when if they really wanted to bad things they would have a fully laden 747 at their disposal.

As a SLF it does not make me feel any safer that you guys have to go through all the hasstle that we do, it just makes me feel that common sense has gone out of the window.

Good luck in your fight hope the situation gets better for you soon. :ok:

[Mr Jones]

Are the rules different for Private Jets? Was at work on Tuesday and was told by some of our cabin crew that they had been searched very thoroughly by the security guards at the staff gate at one of our bases. however two cabin crew on a private jet who were not based there, walked through the checkpoint with two large beverages, well over 100ml and had no passes. Both were waved through without either being asked for id, to dispose of their drinks or anything.

[BYALPHAINDIA]

Once watched a whole PIA crew 18+ go past us through the Passport checks at MAN, They didn't stop any of them!!:ugh:

Regards.

[barberpole_squared]

Interestingly enough, I fly a large passenger airplane in Africa. I often get entrusted with the fanciest of (loaded) weaponry from various government agencies while their representatives sip coffee in the back with the rest of the unknowing passengers. AND I often have the occasion to not only fly over large North American interests here in Africa - but also various embassies and high commissions.

Security at the African airports is a joke. I walk through the metal detector and continue on my way despite it having gone off like a Christmas tree. As previous posters have indicated - I have control of where the airplane goes and what it does with it's usual 9 hour cash of jet fuel. Have you heard of any aircraft terrorist activity in Africa despite the levels of security here?

Ahh, and as for 'pilots' making it through Western security with intent.... Let me remind you that THOSE were NOT pilots. They were fundamentalists who took a couple of flying lessons and made it on board as PASSENGERS with weapons.

I see the issue here as screening pilots for their airport pass and positively identifying them by renal or fingerprint scan - (as opposed to anal) and letting them go as good, trustworthy folks. I always wonder if the $13.00 per hour security guard takes their shoes off when reporting for work? Do they have their 'water' checked. Aren't most of them from the Elephant crowd?

My point here is that there little to stop terrorists from doing something like this again if they REALLY wanted to. They have made their point; they have reached their objective of scaring the pants off of the West and screwing up the convenience of air transport in the US.

And just to set the record straight, I am licensed to fly these airplanes in three countries - have airport passes from the US, Canada and Africa and am from the cultural background that is on the watch list.

So - my rant done...... peace.

[DrKev]

Do they have their 'water' checked.

Well you did mention a renal scan when you may have meant retinal scan but then again...:}

[barberpole_squared]

I stand corrected Doc. Thanks... (not even the spell check got that one!)

[haughtney1]

Through JFK last nite as operating crew.....bottled water in hand...no problems:ok:

[K.Whyjelly]

Been through a couple of airports Stateside in the last few weeks as operating crew and ,as above, had half finished bottle of water in my hand and upon asking the TSA operative to 'trash' the offending item, was informed that 'it's ok Sir, you're flightcrew'.

Very refreshing (as was the water)!!;)

If only this attitude could filter across to this side of the pond :hmm:

[TwinJock]

LHR must be the pits - I bid to avoid the stuffy, cramped, unfriendly and security paranoid airport. As aircrew it takes a good hour to get from your hotel to the aircraft, not even 2 kilometers. Sitting in a crew bus staring at the crew busses, catering trucks etc taking a life time to get through. Shoes, jackets, laptops, liquids etc. Fun when the preeceding crews consists of 20 souls.

Get a life people - I am supposed to be aircrew, not a suspect!! Screen everybody, but do random checks if you have to.:D

[Sleeve Wing]

I've been keeping up with the large number of comments on this thread and feel even more sure that I did the right thing.
I RETIRED.
What used to be a brilliant career has been ruined, not by the terrorists, but by the attitude of a large number of jumped-up ne'er-do-wells who spoil a good day before it can ever get started. How the hell are we supposed to deal with all the normal hassles awaiting us when it starts with this....EVERY WORKING DAY.
I take this opportunity now to empathise with the large number of security staff who know how to do the job properly but are let down by a proportion of people who should never be allowed into such a position because of grave intellectual failings.
You all know who they are. Why don't you speak up ?
Let's get some intelligent people on the gates and not the disrespectful inadequates who are allowed to inflate their pathetic egos at the expense of aircrews and airside staff. After all, we all just want a quiet, trouble-free day and the knowledge of a job well done, don't we ?

And why is it that UK airports are the worst ? LHR, MCR, GLA, MME ?

Capt.Sleeve. (LHR based for 12years.)

[alexb757]

Yeah, life is just the pits and it seems to be that LHR has taken over what the TSA in the US started.

There are many inconsistencies and as world-wide crew member, I can certainly attest to that. Keep in mind, that the "security" is the appropriate govt showing the world that they can deal with whatever is thrown at them.

The shoe thing came after that British guy Richard (?) Reid and his igniting shoe. OK says everyone, let's now check shoes. Next it's belt's, pens you name it. Then the hullabaloo dies down and things are relaxed. Yep, H2O is no problem in the US now - but it still is in the UK!! As is the 1 carry-on bag "principle". So, having arrived from the US where the rules in and out are 1 piece of carry-on plus a personal item like a briefcase or computer bag, you suddenly find yourself with a different set of rules when you cross the Atlantic! It's this very same thing that prompted BA CEO Willie to spout off at the BAA (whose rule it is at all UK airports, not the airlines) saying they were losing out on business pax who were avoiding LHR and other UK airports if at all possible. These are the very same people that bring in the largest revenue.

Sounds like the world has gone competely nuts and no one seems to have any COMMON sense (or know how to use it) or discretion. Folks, the time for political correctness is long overdue.

And just to prove my point, against my wishes, I happened to travel through LHR earlier this week carrying what I've always carried when I go to or from work. The difference? I decided to travel in uniform and even though I was a transit pax, I was literally whisked through, taken out of the pax line and into the fast track line (I was deadheading on another airline as a pax, not my own). Not a soul mentioned the one-bag rule and I did NOT have to remove belt, shoes, nadda!!

Maybe times are achanging? Or maybe you just have to work smarter...:)

[Jay Arr]

Went through the crew channel at LHR recently. You know how they've got the list of operating crew for each flight and they tick your name off on the way through? Well on this day someone had c*cked up and they had the completely wrong list of names. Solution: "Oh, we'll just write your name on this blank piece of paper and fix it later."

Well THAT makes me feel just so safe. That name check is probably the MOST IMPORTANT check - proves that this homo-sapien is, in fact, permitted to be there. The hats-off-jackets-off-shoes-off-belt-off-brain-off -laptop-out-liquids-out nonsense just doesn't matter so much if you are AUTHORISED to be proceeding to a jet somewhere.

They do that again and I'm going to either (a) pull up a chair* and insist they go find the right list or (b) back to the office to make a formal complaint.

* then again, being LHR it'll probably have to be the floor

[verticalhold]

Jay Arr;

Be very careful. Sitting on that floor is inviting athlete's a**e, or maybe even anal veruccas these days!

VH

[flycat]

Just in case you guys don't know, in the US, all crews in "uniform" with the crew badge (working a flight or not) are allowed/exempt from the liquid ban to pax. You still have to go through screening and take your shoes off, most of the time

[ft]

Good to hear. At a major European airport, things are not so good as of a few weeks ago. They introduced new routines. We were forced to go through security to get from our own aircraft into the terminal. Crew badges and all. Yes, including the entire parody of putting deodorant and shaving cream in a plastic bag.

Repeat to get back to the aircraft. Getting anything to drink back onto the aircraft was off as well. Oh joy. Flight crews without anything to drink, now there's a safety hazard if ever I saw one.

It sure is ridiculous to have to tanker drinking water for the crew from home base, but that is where we're at currently. Sandwiches in the aircraft instead of eating in the terminal too - just cannot be bothered to be strip searched to enjoy another airport meal.

[Bad Robot]

It still amuses me that they continue to remove, nail files, nail scissors, nail clippers, tweezers etc. But once you are through security then you can purchase aforementioned items in Boots!:ugh:

Not to mention charging you for the plastic bag for your 100ml toiletries.:D Yep! really taking the P1ss now.


BR.

[tubby linton]

The crew channel at LGW is now closed at night.This means you have to go through the terminal security and then walk to your aircraft rather than use the bus.

[Firestorm]

All the police and special branch people are allowed top pass through with impunity, and no searches.

I went through with an empty 500ml water bottle one day (by mistake I hasten to add). The security goon wanted to know why I had it. Quick as a flash (unusual for me) I told him it was my pee bottle which I needed because of the locked flight deck door routine that we have top put up with nowadays. If he emptied it could I have it back please? The look on his face as he went to empty it..... :E :E

[Itswindyout]

what a good solution to the problem......

windy

[IcePack]

I see LGW has closed their Concord House Security Staff Search between 2200 & 0300 Local.

More hassel for the people who are tryimng to actually keep aviation going. Nice 25 min walk to the some gates. As for getting buses to remote stands well you can guess. So most airlines have 1 hr report for crews for FTL purposes how long do you actually need to report in reality, surely enough is enough of this hassel.

[tubby linton]

Why does Concorde house at LGW have a member of security staff sitting on an office chair at the entrance doors?

[Puritan]

The folks at the door of Concorde House are there to check that the people wishing to enter have a proper reason for doing so (there've been there since the 'Open Borders' protestors were doing their thing about the new immigration detention centre being buillt down by 'X' car park).

I went through the LGW Concorde House crew security check on Tuesday and it took 25 minutes to get through.... wherein there was some officious bitch checking the checkers whom I seemed to particularly irritate when I asked why 1-in-2 were being patted down and about the large number of bag searches... Her highhanded response was that previously the searches had not been thorough enough and that this checkpoint would close if the job was not being done to a higher standard...... eeek !

Aside - has anybody also thought of putting a fire-axe in ones flight bag? I.e. remembering that we've got them to hand on aircraft in any case?!... wheren I've often been tempted to go and get the one on the a/c and bring it to show the tossers the futility of what they do !

Also, how about putting in some really hard-core filth / porno in ones bags so that the bags searches take on a new element of fun?!

And what about getting all your crew to carry as many 100ml bottle as you can fit into one of those 20x20cm bag... filling each with water..... the point being that with, say, 7 crew, with each having say a litre that's probably 7 litres of liquid... which just goes to show that Johny Terrorist and his friends could equally do same. Duh ! :E

[haughtney1]

The crew channel at LGW is now closed at night.This means you have to go through the terminal security and then walk to your aircraft rather than use the bus.

So much for the BAA's increased "investment" in security staff...more like robbing Peter to pay Paul..:hmm:

Puritan...next time through mate, if you should run into said biatch again..politely enquire who checks her:}

Also, how about putting in some really hard-core filth / porno in ones bags so that the bags searches take on a new element of fun?!


Done on a REGULAR basis:p the worst offender I know included a copy of "horse man love" :}

[misterblue]

Years ago, the tinkers in N. Ireland used to make taxi drivers drive bombs, under threat of attacking their family if they refused to comply.
By searching us, at least this avenue has been closed.
Sensible security must therefore stay.
MB

[Dea Certe]

Misterblue,

There are quite a few items on the aircraft that could be used for mass destruction by a crew member. The yoke, for one. No need to secret a bit of liquid or other "bad things" in ones lunch bag or crew kit.

Dea

[Solar]

Coming through Heathrow last week as a pax I noticed that some of the shops are selling shampoo/shower soap in 100 ml bottles at nearly the same price as the regular sized bottles.
Ziploc dispensing machine at BHD gives four bags for a pound with an adjacent sign that states only one bag may be used!!!
Somebody is cashing in on this.

[Ladusvala]

Okay misterblue, so that´s the reason pilots can no longer bring a leatherman tool to work?!

The avenue you described can be defeated by proper identification procedures for crew and random searches at dedicated crew entrance check points.

Taxi drivers weren´t chaced at all were they?

If I´ve been forced to carry a bomb into an airport I can just hint to the security personnel that they should search me or I simply put the bomb through the x-ray machine.

[Airbus Unplugged]

Somebody is cashing in on this
Correct. Why on Earth would the British Retail Scareports Authority pursue this ridiculous farce if it didn't see the opportunity to coerce people into spending their hard earned cash in the terminal shops?
And why is their shampoo any less explosive than mine?
This is a shining example of 'Rip-off Britain'.
Shut-up and pay - the UK way.:ugh:

[Dufo]

Now you're through, let's go shopping!
I make a disfigured-Walter-Matthau-like face each time I see this.
:yuk:

[Mick Stability]

There appears to be an intimation that the DofT seem to think that we're all deleriously happy with the current situation.

Since the only way to get the message across to anyone these days appears to be firehosing them with MOR's, I suggest we get cracking.

Offensive, discriminatory, threatning, intrusive, stressful, distracting, environmentally unfriendly, I don't know. You know politicians, you know what buttons to press, GET WRITING.:ok:

[dixi188]

I've just returned to flying as Flight Engineer after 18 months rest in the hangar and was surprised to be told at Belfast Aldergrove that I was not "aircrew" and would have to be issued with a temporary airside pass as per maintenance engineers.
This was done by the nice security lady, with details from my passport, without any hassle, and as soon as I got in the crew bus the driver took it away to return it to security.
So they have a strange rule that just creates more paperwork for no apparent reason.
I know we are a rare breed these days but there are 2 or 3 A300's with F/E's every day at BFS.
I wonder who made the rule?
Anyway it's good to be flying again.:)

[Airnuts]

A young man was before the magistrates court in Liverpool yesterday after being found on board a jet at LPL John Lennon

Apparently, he had walked in through the open vehicle gate before it closed and boarded the jet - a so called "last minute budget flyer"

The belief that the Ketchup Kops at LHR who make vetted employees scrape the red stuff off their Big Macs and the Toothpaste SS who cause queues and delays are about as much use ,or even less, as a blind girl of 98 giving them the once over
The continued strict controls over everyone who can't take water through security but can merrily buy it at the other side (how do the shops get their reservoirs passed security? Or who is conning whom and doing the extra business?)

Of course a nasty nasty captain could pass on a dirty magazine to some other captain and not fly himself. Of course this or that COULD happen and that is the reason for the security controls (that don't work)

But just think back. Why were they introduced in the first place? What exactly DID happen?
The answer is that NOTHING actually happened but INTELLIGENCE (no laughing permitted) informed that they had good reason to believe that something might happen or was even going to happen

I guess it was the same Intelligence that told Tony (and us) that Saddam could blow us all to smitherines in 45 mins

Geez, I was in Paphos the week before the Iraq war started and in Cairo on a day trip the Sunday before it started

Now one guess where the paranoia is coming from and one guess whether the chicanery is really doing anything to avoid the most terrible of perils

If your ticket is drawn then you go. Not before and not afterwards.
Worry kills

Airnuts :ugh:
"You've never too much fuel until you're on fire"

http://www.pioneertelephonecoop.com/~mchumor/security_cartoon_5590.gif

[peebs24]

While this government leaves the borders wide open then we will all have to put up with security at airports. This is one of the "advantages" of Mr Blair's glorious multi-cultural Britain.

[Looker]

Whilst the current security regime is in place you adapt and get on with your job. What is indefensible is the fact that the personnel employed don't know their job, enforce the rules to varying degrees and make the rules up as they go along.

Can't happen you say?

At BHX I passed through security screen and handed my non BHX airport pass for inspection. Trainee security person attempted to swipe card, I told him it would not swipe as it was not a BHX airport pass. Trainer then stepped in and informed trainee that as I did not hold a valid BHX pass I would be subject to an automatic body and bag search and I would need to be escorted to crew room. Being based in BHX for last year, holding a seperate swipe card that allows access to airside doors/airbridges and being on the 'B' menu I queried his assertion. Cue change in attitude from security personnel. I asked to see supervisor who was equally unhelpful and confirmed her colleague's stance.

So I sat for 25 minutes in BHX security waiting to 'escorted' to the XYZ crewroom by the XYZ base manager. It being a Sunday there was no base manager at work so security eventually relented and allowed my FO to escort me. Net result flight delayed 10 mins.

I raised issue with my base captain - next day apology from head of security who admitted his staff were completely in the wrong.

The apology was welcome but the 'are you daring to challenge me' attitude of the security was not. My tongue may eventually recover from the biting it received that Sunday!

Looker

[Trainallover]

As a very regular traveller through UK airports I see the stupidity that all airline staff and passengers have to put up with.

Why don't all UK pilots and airline ground staff do the regular traveller a favour and go on strike to demonstrate to the Dft and the politicians that playing to the uninformed general public, who believe what is being done improves their safety, when you can see from the pages of PpRune over a long period that what is actually being carried out is major inconvenience for marginal increase in safety.

Why can't the industry set the rules rather than civil servants reacting to their political masters. Govenments believe in a modern society that it is their right to protect the public when the world is not perfect and never will be. By a strike an informed industry would demonstrate to uninformed Government that the travelling public want a proper balance and it is certainly not that way currently.

[stevef]

Flying out of Stansted (pax) on Sunday. Got put in the queue to remove shoes. Walked through the metal detector, ahead of and behind several other people. Watched the guy manning the footwear scanner. He was talking to his mate. Didn't look at the screen for at least 20 seconds.
Security: if you're going to make us follow these rules, at least play some #*$$£~ attention.

[MaxReheat]

Trainallover - over the past few years of rants and raves ((and many hundreds of thousands of words) that have appeared on this website there have been many calls for united action worldwide by the flying/engineering/cabin crew community to express their discontent about the current security fiasco with which the industry is blighted. You can judge the outcome for yourself. Regretably, the lack of any action is symptomatic of the disjointed and fractionalised nature of the industry, and of aircrew in particular, who will always moan about pay, conditions, allowances (and security) over a pint of beer but will, when push comes to shove, do nothing of any consequence about any of it. The main reason is the lack of a 'national' union (in the UK's case); we could learn some lessons about how to get employers to 'see the light' from our rail and tube driving unions.:ok:

[beerdrinker]

Please excuse me if this has been covered before - in fact if it has, Mr Moderator delete this question.

In other parts of the world if one goes through the metal detector and pings the bell, the security staff use a magnetic wand and pass it over one and ask you to remove the offending object from your pocket (or wherever) if it causes the wand to ping.

In the UK, if you ping the warning when going through the metal detector you are subject to a physical pat down search by the security staff.

What legal right do these civilians (not warrant carrying police oficers) have to touch one (quite possibly in an intimate manner) during the pat down search? It is my opinion that it contravenes my human rights to be physically touched in an intimate manner by a non professional.

Do I have the legal right to refuse to be patted down by one of these people and insist upon the use of a wand and if further search is required, demand that a police officer do it?

[hotmetal]

They have no right to search you. They can request and presumably most people agree in order to be allowed access airside. The same principle with searching your bags. They need to ask permission. As for touching you 'intimately' I have posted the following previously...

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.

[widavjon]

A Security Officer may only search a person, be it aircrew, other airfield personel ,or SLF with their consent. If you refuse a search by that guard he should then offer you the chance to be hand searched by one of his colleagues, If you then refuse this search, he must offer you the chance of a private search in the presence of one of his fellow officers.
If you then refuse then you WILL be refused entry into the restricted Zone.At which point the Police will be Informed and you may find that getting onboard the aircraft will be a long drawnout set of procedures.

[Shiny side down]

The information provided above by Hotmetal gives a fairly clear idea of what is reasonable whilst being practical, against what becomes highly questionable.
I'm not about to suggest that there are people who have become airport security staff just to feel people up, but there are many reports now of this happening.

The security services in whatever manner they are presented, are as accountable to such regulations as the public they serve. However, their training, vetting(?), and procedures will no doubt ensure a reasonably even application of the rules.

But when it comes to airport security staff, where are the controls for these? I would suggest there are none. As I suggested before, there will be a great many of them that are infact quite correct and their integrity would normally be beyond reproach. Their conduct is most likely determined by many years of actually wanting to do the job they are still doing. (Notwithstanding a few oddballs that may be in there)
I feel fairly confident that recent manpower shortages in certain areas, caused by sudden changes in security procedures has led to less than ideal personnel being hired and subsequently let loose on the public and us!

Are these people to be concidered trained personnel? I would suggest- not really. The training will be tailored for the lowest common denominator, to achieve the best throughput of 'acceptable' personnel, as quickly as possible.

So should they be referred to and considered 'security' officers?
A policeman(or woman) is generally perceived to be appropriately trained and qualified by their uniform. We are however, allowed to request to see their id/warrant card, unless I am mistaken.

Airport staff are not in the same league, surely. They are 'airport security', but not security services personnel. Their presence in my mind is one of visual deterrent, and not much more.
If their only claim to perform this task is the holding of an airport ID, and given that they go through the same procedures to acquire the ID as You and I, then I would suggest on that basis that we as pilots are equally entitled to hand search the staff! Although I am highly unlikely to want to.

So as a first line of deterrent/defense, it seems that they should have the correct equipment to do the job, without physically interfering with the person. Not having the correct equipment should not immediately give them the right to do anyhting more physical. That surely is the job of the professionals.

I think this is something that needs to be clarified, before sufficient unrest is caused that undermines the whole point of having such a large visible deterrent.

WIDAVJON, from what are you quoting?

[redaces5]

The security inspection of pilots at airports are magnified. All commercial airplanes have fire axes in the cockpit. A pilot with a criminal mind does not need a weapon in his person.

[Rockhound]

The cartoon posted (#329) by Airnuts is inaccurate, for Gatwick at least. Last week I attempted to pass through the X-ray gate at GTW clutching my passport and boarding pass in my right hand. The security official at the belt insisted that I place my passport and boarding pass in a tray on the belt. I found out afterwards that, had I put the items in my shirt pocket, I would have been able to pass through the gate.
Do we laugh :) or cry :{ ?
Rockhound

[Shiny side down]

We cry. someone must mourne the loss of rational thought and common sense in this world.
After that, we can start laughing like all the other nutters!:ugh:

[widavjon]

Shiny side down, I am a security officer at an airport in the Northwest and as such I know the criteria as handed down by the DFT and am quoting from that. As for Vetting procedures for airside passes, for a normal airside pass a criminal record check is done,whereas for a security guards pass a counter terrorist check is performed

[Human Factor]

As for Vetting procedures for airside passes, for a normal airside pass a criminal record check is done,whereas for a security guards pass a counter terrorist check is performed.

Has anyone considered performing a CT check on pilots? After all, a pat down of a pilot is as much use as a chocolate teapot until they remove the fire axe, the fuel and the flight controls. :rolleyes:

[fallen]

All commercial airplanes have fire axes in the cockpit.Just out of interest. What use is a fire axe. It's hardly a precise tool to be swinging around an airplane. I would have thought some sort of prybar/crowbar would be a better tool.

[Puritan]

Be it the wielding of a fire axe or a crowbar... is verging on semantic is it not?!

Aside - it's all surely much easier to procure some old freighter in Africa, fill it full of high explosives / flammables, etc (call it freight / tractor parts?)... and file a flight plan to any London airport !

Indeed a modestly sized light a/c would serve just as well from any of numerous private airstrips home & abroad. :ugh:

And I always did wonder if I should have told 'Disclosure Scotland' about all those serious crimes I committed abroad and that would never have passed muster in the UK... but hey ho... it's a need to know basis eh?.. and they don't need to know! Aside, I ain't got a UK criminal record for any of it so who gives a flying s**t! :E

[haughtney1]

Has anyone considered performing a CT check on pilots? After all, a pat down of a pilot is as much use as a chocolate teapot until they remove the fire axe, the fuel and the flight controls.
Wash your mouth out Human Factor, report to the "common sense removal class"
A counter-terrorist check for pilots? you have thoughts above your station sir, pilots are mere insects on the hide of the security apparatus...an annoyance that should never be allowed to scale the lofty heights of being considered PART of the team..we are a threat..a dangerous group at the controls who will strike without a moments notice!

[beerdrinker]

Widavjon,
Unless you are employed by one of the Government Security Services (AKA MI5 & MI6) you are not a "Security Officer". You are a Security Operative/person/man/woman/staff. Definitely not Officer. The word officer technically means somebody who holds the Queen's commission. Practically it implies a professional as in Police Officer. Airport Security staff cannot be described as professionals - even their own employers do not rate them highly enough to pay them much more than the minimum wage.

[Shiny side down]

Widavjon
Many of my experiences are with BAA staff of 'indeterminate' capacity, save that they have been decked out in the new Sky-Farce uniform, and seemingly with the unform gos the mandate- behave as you see fit. All praise to those who have taken it seriously. Shame on the rest who are using the position for other gain.

I have operated out of one non- BAA airport in the NW, and there is a world of difference in the manner and demeanor of the staff at the security area.
With that aside, and not knowing what your exact position is (I am a FO), or how your position relates to traditional security services...
Surely you must be able to accept that the totally cack-handed manner with which security is being implemented across the country, and especially in some of the more notable airports controlled by a single major operator, that this is totally unnecessary, and even destructive to the end goal of making aviation safe.

As I mentioned previously, trained security staff on the whole have a completely different approach to the task than do the majority of the other staff performing the task at present.

Look at how 2 police officers would scrutinise a large group of people. Observation is a major factor. Not being distracted for large periods of time by random banter. The random banter may continue, but it doesn't have the same distracting effect.
It's most definitely not as confrontational as much of the treatment being given to staff who have an equal obligation to be in the same place.

[Airbus Unplugged]

The reason you have been 'Criminal Record Checked' is to create jobs in Labour constituencies in Scotland, and to allow the government to impose yet another tax on aviation and other hapless industries.

The CRC is no more use than a quick scan of your birth certificate and a call to the local nick.

There is no possible justification for the treatment of flight crew by UK security operatives. If police officers can pass unmolested than pilots certainly can.

It's like living in East Germany.

[Trainallover]

As this thread and others continue you can always see the absolute stupidity of airport security process as it stands at the moment. Please please do the travelling public a favour - invoke industrial action.

[pipistrelle]

When disco scot was mentioned above I had to laugh at this ridiculous check, I was once told that it was introduced to weed out perverts and criminals from the education and medical professions.
I had worked abroad for many years and upon returning to the U.K. I was told I had to complete this stupid waste of time, it got interesting when it got to the bit about ALL!! your addresses for the last 5yrs. I called them up and told them of my numerous locations - hotels, hostels and friends houses all over the map and that it would be almost impossible to complete this with any degree of accuracy. I was more than a little surprised to be told that it didn't matter as they don't check overseas addresses. ???????????

[Three Mile Final]

Colleague flew into Heathrow last night on a BA flight from Glasgow and the whole planeload of Pax found themselves at Passport Control - but without passports.

Immigration were firstly incredulous and would not beleive that they were off an internal UK flight.

When faced with 150 people saying the same thing they eventually accepted that there had been a cock-up of some sort and led the whole bunch of them through various doors and along corridors to the domestic arraivals.

Trouble was nobody checked and ID's them to make sure they were all and only off the Glasgow flight - so heaven knows who else might have tagged along in the line and managed to skip immigration controls.

Appalling.

:ugh: :mad:

[flyblue]

From the iht.com:

At Kobe's security checkpoint boarding passes were checked, laptops unloaded and I was about to discard a bottle of juice when the security agent extended her gloved hand to take it. I expected to watch her chuck it in the bin, but instead she took it over to a device that obviously scanned the contents and decided it wasn't filled with something that could rip a 767 out of the sky. Why similar scanners haven't been fitted at airports around the world to allow passengers to carry beverages on board seems odd. Then again, it would demand a bit more work on the part of the security contractors, so it's obviously been ruled out in less service-minded nations, i.e., the rest of the world.
The rest of the article (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/05/arts/tyler6.php?page=2) is worth reading...

[Ron & Edna Johns]

Yes, these liquid scanners have been used in Japan for some time now - well before the so-called "liquid-explosive-terror-scare" in Britain. I experienced such machines in Tokyo and Osaka in late 05/early 06. The Japanese are way, way ahead of the rest of the world in this respect - they were thinking proactively about such threats AND coming up with a practical solution.

AND - the Japanese don't simply order you to take your shoes off. If you "beep", they ask you politely to take them off and then hand you a clean pair of slippers so you don't have to walk across a filthy floor. Not that Japanese floors are left filthy for long....

AND - the Japanese exhibit the utmost courtesy towards crew, especially when going through screening. Thorough but certainly not unpleasant, unlike "western" countries. It is breathtakingly refreshing.

日本 has a great deal going for it......

[Dream Land]

日本 has a great deal going for it...... Spot on, delightful people to work with. :ok:

[Shiny side down]

Where do I apply?

[RevMan2]

Don't want to rekindle the liquids discussion per se, but....
B31 in FRA T1 the other day, having negotiated the primary and (significantly more stringent because UK destination) secondary screenings.
So I'm now in a sterile zone, free of WMD's, toothpaste tubes and sundry other liquids in containers >100ml.
Screening staff's bag is open, revealing a 1.5ltr PET bottle containing...some sort of pop?
I asked Fraport last week how they reconcile this with the EU regs regarding liquids.
No answer.
Federal security today says it's OK "because we do spot checks on liquids with the tools available to us (i.e. get the staff member to take a swig..)" but "we can't explain why it's different in the UK" and "we also don't see a risk of someone smuggling something through in a bottle and giving it to a passenger"
So there you have it.
Either the UK's round-the-twist paranoid or FRA is being frighteningly cavalier....
(And yes, I do, in fact, think that the liquid explosive thing has been totally overblown, but this comes down to complying with standards/directives, no matter how inane)

[hotmetal]

Well crew are exempt as far as my experience goes in the rest of the world so I guess the screeners are too. I am glad the rest of the world is not as mad as the UK. It reassures me to see some common sense around the place. Especially in Germany. My life at work could be so much less stressful if I only had to deal with German security staff and not have to endure the ridiculous rules in the UK every time I go to work.

[despegue]

I'm alowed to take my drinks, deo etc. with me in the cockpit from all European airports, except when going through UK-security.
I am treated with respect in all European airports, except in the UK, where they mostly look at me as if I'm a serial killer.

Just waiting now for some UK pilots to slag me off again and claim that "only the UK is following the rules to the letter" and that they know best :zzz:

[MuttleyJ]

Actually I think UK crew would mostly agree with you, I much prefer going thru foreign airports where I (mostly) get treated like a human rather than LHR where I ALWAYS get body searched and we get nasty emails from our manager if, god forbid, we accidentally have a moisturizer or lip balm in a pocket rather than the plastic bag :\

[hotmetal]

i don't think there are many UK pilots who would support the current rules. No doubt some of them will post a reply.

[brain fade]

I also work thru' FRA & other European airports on a very regular basis.
Happily I've yet to come acreoss the mad 'orders iz orders' attitude found virtually EVERYWHERE in the UK!
In Europe crew seem to be treated with a little bit more respect than in the UK, and rightly so IMHO.
Now, having said that, I've recently had a lot less trouble at UK x-ray machines than was the case say, six months ago.
Is it maybe up for review then, as I seem to remember seeing somewhere?
It's just such a lot of total :mad:, FFS!!

[Dogma]

Current Rules for Pilots in the UK are total B.S.

But hey...it keeps the pesants whom do the security screening entertained! No qualifications, no skills, no common scence...NO MATTER become an Airside Security Agent!

Thankfully, I don't fly out of base much and don't take liquids to work.

The Lunatics are running the asylum! (Whitehall, etc)

[Bernoulli]

I had my spare razor blades taken from me (stolen) by a 'security' goon in the UK recently and I'm just about sick to my back teeth of the pantomime enacted every time I go to work (300+ seat jet). The utter futility of harassing pilots before flying seems to have passed our security 'experts' by.

Does anyone have the name and address of the individual at the top of the UK 'security' food chain? I want to write to this person and tell them exactly what I think of their stupid rules and regulations as narrowly interpreted in the specific case of pilots. It won't of course change anything but at least I'll feel a bit better.

I'm just tired of arriving at the aeroplane feeling angry.

[hotmetal]

Write to BALPA. Are you a member? They are specifically looking for this type of report or better still write an MOR. They [BALPA, CAA etc] are actively looking for evidence of what you have just said. The people at the top just don't believe it is a problem.

[Farrell]

As I mentioned somewhere earlier.

Nail clippers taken away at screening in Geneva.

Then promptly walked airside and bought a large bladed Swiss Army Knife.

Sigh....

[OldBillXV]

HKG - Airport Staff and crew exempt from LAG restrictions.

XV

[Hirsutesme]

BALPA are asking all pilots to file MORs, send copy to BALPA. They have been making strenuous representations for ages, but it is largely anecdotal. So they need MORs, many thereof. Dont write here, write on an MOR

[DuDe . . . Sweet]

must say its male pilots complain about the body searches but as im a girl & to save themselves a law suit for being 'sexist' or 'harrasing' me sercurity tend to pat me down quickly and wave me through, although i have had snotty letters from the boss after i've forgot to put the lip balm in the clear bag opps:*. i thing i must say though is that sercurity is so tight in the UK that you cant even fart without being accused of trying to bomb the masses- why would i blow up my a/c purposefully is perplexing to me as we got this job as we love flying not blown up in pieces. Just relized this has turned into a sort of rant- sorry:oh: jennie xxx

[Bad Robot]

The problem is that most of the controversial ASR's that have an MOR tick in the box are filtered by the airlines anyway. So the CAA never get to see them.
You have got NO chance of getting the reality of the situation addressed at all.


BR.

[MAS Guy]

The security in UK must be crazy. The pilots job is to fly the plane safely and not causing any harm to it. Hey, if they take the small shaver (due to small razor), what about the mandatory crash axe in the cockpit. That can do more harm, or you guys in UK dont even have that? I'm lucky here in Msia, the security is very professional and very polite. They respect us as human being and not categories pilots as a person who want to harm the plane. It is our job to be safe, but the rules have been implemented to far over there.

[I Inform You....]

I inform you.... Security is still a joke. Took off from B?? recently with a
"Rock Concert" in full swing on departure with very little security at all, a few small metal fences like the ones usually kept for crowd segregation into the Bar area. 5 police cars and about 20 feds were the only "security" on the apron, which is where the concert was taking place.

On the return flight, on vacating the runway, we were greeted with 4 Gypsy Caravans and a bonfire with Fiddler an a small party in full swing! All within a few meters of the Runway and well within the Aerodrome boundary.:D




You may switch off..........

[i_remind_you]

I inform you.... - I remind you


I need two four watt light-bulbs...

Follow the follow-me and after on stand...





You may switch off! :}

[BIG MACH]

In both Britain and the US I have attended briefings on the subject of concealed and disguised weapons given to audiences of policemen and SF personnel. To say that some policemen were stunned at what they saw is not to overstate the case. Anyone who attended those briefings will be aware that airport security does not deter the genuine terrorist, although it is very effective at detecting belt buckles on law abiding passengers and crew.
I have some sympathy for the security staff at the gate. They have been given a job to do by political leaders with their heads in the sand who do not want to face reality. But I feel nothing but contempt for those bureaucrats in the D of T and similar agencies worldwide who pretend that their activities are protecting the general public. Sadly, there are pilots on this forum who feel we should go with the flow.
If there is a lesson from 9/11 that none but the Americans seem to want to recognise, it is that point defence of the flightdeck should be a priority. Area defence, including gate security, is then a valid defensive line. On its own, gate security is no defence at all since it is less than 100% effective. Remember that next time they confiscate your shaving foam.

[i_remind_you]

Dear Sir, I remind you...

(Royal) 'We' recently watched in 2007 at B?? airport a group of gypsies having a little party along the edge of our JAA certified International airport runway!

...you may switch off:}

[verticalhold]

EGHD twice over the weekend. both times the pax and crew went through screening and arrived at the aircraft (VIP charter) laughing, happy and at ease. The security staff were excellent, mature, wise and funny. The whole farce was explained to the pax as they went through, but the search was bloody thorough.

EGN? one evening last week. Pax and crew treated like scum, handling agent very embarassed. Thirty minutes to get two pilots and three pax to an aircraft. Lead passenger's words "Never, ever bring me here again. I'm tempted to come back and blow the f***ing place up just because of their behaviour."

Lead passenger ex-mil thought the search technique "pathetic and totally lacking in training."

VH

[girtbar]

Dont forget this petition is still running, almost 3,000 signatures.

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

:ugh:

[mike wess]

Your are a cockpit crew member with proper ID and uniform of a flag carrier airline, accompanied by 12 flight attendants and you are asked to take your shoes off when passing through the metal detector.
You have two options

1- Take them off and comply, and try to forget about it till it happens again
or
2- Refuse to take them off and take your risks

I would like to hear from airline pilots on how they feel about taking their shoes off in public infront of all their crew and pax

[Ropey Pilot]

No1 - or there won't be a next time!

Lots of threads about whether crew should be subject to same checks as the pax - but at the moment we are.

If you refuse you will probably lose your airside pass - and therefore job. Nothing would make the little men on the powertrip at the scanner happier!

Not sure if this is a rumour or news though - thread to be moved perhaps?

[Re-Heat]

Why would you disregard a perfectly legal request from security personnel under any circumstances, however frustrating it might be.

I think this board has already established that it is not worth fighting security rules for the sake of one's job - if you want to do that get into politics.

I am not sure why the OP raises the question: the argument is out of date and settled.

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:

There's absolutely no problem at all. Usually fly with the same dedicated VVIP crew on ******* and so forth's 747. The senior cabin attendant, who is very beautiful beneath her veil, carries a small brocaded camp chair which she opens up for me at the appropriate time. I sit down, shielded from the gaze of any passing rifff raff by the remainder of my crew, while the no2 or no3 removes my shoes for inspection. One of the crew then dusts the inner sole lightly with a soft and fragrant powder. I adore patchouli, especially for those long haul night trips. Then off we go to the limousine and thence to the aircaft.:)

[niknak]

Ropey,

I wonder which are the "Little men on the power trip".

Like it or not, right or wrong, security applies to us all, no matter how inflated the ego or the level of self importance.

There have been many posts here about airport security, but it's with us to stay and part of the aviation life.
How long does it take to co operate and get on with it? a matter of seconds and less than a minute.

If anyone wants to make a fuss and make themselves and their employer look stupid, get on with it and they'll find out what happens when you do, in the interim they can ponder where their next job will be - not likely to be in aviation.

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:

The fact that some goon dressed up in a white shirt and blue slacks asks one to do something does not necessarily make it a legal request. What he can perhaps do, as an airport employee or servant, is to prevent one proceeding further if one declines to do as he requests and his employer requires.:ugh:

[Monarch Man]

I wonder which are the "Little men on the power trip".

Ask and ye shall recieve, for before us....

If anyone wants to make a fuss and make themselves and their employer look stupid, get on with it and they'll find out what happens when you do, in the interim they can ponder where their next job will be - not likely to be in aviation.

Is the personification of a "little man" on a power trip

[Guttn]

I think the major issue is that the crew IS the law onboard. The Captain is the Sheriff and his trusty F/o the Deputy. Even though they may never have met until checkin time, they still perform their roles as per company and aircraft procedures. They also have to handle any problem or disturbance which may arise. Together. Even if they have just met. How is this possible? Through standardization and a common goal. Some even call it professionalism :ok:. Both pilots are trained since day 1 of flightschool to think safety first, and that they are responsible for anything that happens inflight. Maybe some of us are on egotrips, but I really don`t think so. And having their skills tested twice anually and perhaps sweating through a medical or two, they are then put through a so-called securitycheck by someone right off the street. "Shoes off!" :zzz: So from that point of view I do understand why a lot of us are completely p!$$ed off at these ridiculous regulations :yuk::ugh::mad::ouch::*. Where are the unions anyway?

[fernytickles]

CavortingC - so the frangrant pong of your tosies doesn't overcome the patchouli? Must be wicked stuff..... :eek:

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:
It's only a rumour at the moment mind you, but the story is that the British government is having another 'consultation' on airport security.
The idea coming from No 10 would be to employ immigrants awaiting deportation as security guards at UK airports. This would satisfy new international legal requirements that security staff be government employees, legislation having to be introduced after the Blackstone scandal in Iraq, and that, having had experience of such matters, they would know what to look out for anyway.:suspect:

[kate140983]

Security are not on a power trip, they are just doing their jobs! I would never say no as it is in place to keep us all safe. If something was found I'm sure we'd thank security for possibly saving our lives.

[dustybin]

I was wondering if there has ever been security staff assaulted:confused: It's just we hear about crew being assaulted but never security. Staff search has been fine for months but while traveling as a pax i see the difference. People were shouted at, orders were barked at them and treated as if we were in a school line. I was very naughty and had a carrier bag as well, i was rudely told to put it in my other bag to which i replied "yes no probs, I'll do it while i wait in the queue" (which was about a mile long) I was told to do it now, really loudly and got everyone's attention. I said "OK but no need to speak to me like a child and make a scene". The man behind me got a bollocking too and a couple commented on the security guys attitude. He then proceeded to walk up and down the line watching people trying to intimate people like a strict headmaster, what a sad little man.:8 Whats even sadder is everyone is scared to move, fart, speak or step outside the mile long queue for fear of being refused thought security. I also tried to joke with the scanning people and it went down like a lead balloon. It's only a matter of time as British people are patient but someones patience will run out. I always say kill people with kindness but with regards to security i now don't even try to be nice i speak to them they way they speak to me. Respect must be earned! however some are nice but I've noticed that if one is having a bad day then they all are and vise versa as i meet really friendly security at LHR.

[420 HB]

I have to agree with monarch man about niknak, or should it be HERR niknak and his beer garden cohorts. If ever there was evidence of little man syndrome it is in his power crazed postings. I do hope that he is not employed in "security" at any UK airport, although sadly I feel he suits the present role. One thing to remember niknak despite blairs ruination of this country it remains free and a democracy, i have the right to object and seek recourse through the courts. Or would you see that denied before packing me off to a camp where work will set me free?

[J-Class]

Humble SLF here.

To the OP - is an airline captain's position and dignity really so insecure that they can genuinely expect their gravitas and authority over their crew to be materially diminished by the denigration of being seen shoeless?

Secondly - much as I respect the pilot community, shoeless or not, surely Egyptair 990 teaches us that no-one, even a pilot with airline security clearance, is completely above suspicion?

[peterowensfanclub]

As a Captain you have no authority until you sign for the aircraft and get under way. Therefore at the staff gate you are just an employee with an airside pass. So if you are asked to take off your shoes then currently you have to. If that makes you feel belittled then i suggest its an ego thing rather than a power trip by the guard. Reacting only fulfills that percieved power trip as well. Just smile comply, be on your way.....and whine away the day as usual:8

[GearDown&Locked]

fernytickles ...'spose you're talking out of experience? :ouch:;)

[Spitoon]

is an airline captain's position and dignity really so insecure that they can genuinely expect their gravitas and authority over their crew to be materially diminished by the denigration of being seen shoeless?
Probably not, but SLF, event those with pretty colour frequent flyer cards, travel from time to time, crews do it every day and have to put up with time-consuming checks that probably have limited effectiveness every working day. It's likely to be less a case of insecure dignity than simple repeated inconvenience and delay day in, day out that becomes wearisome!

I speak only as a simple controller. But many ATC towers are airside too! How many travellers would put up with the hassle of security checks just to get to work each day - even with the 'benefit' of a 'staff' channel........which is shared with First/Business class pax?

[antic81]

J-Class,
Fair enough mate, however I don't believe that the Egyptair Captain having his shoes checked before hand would have had the slightest effect on the outcome of that flight.

The whole point is we have been through this all before, pilots don't require a weapon to gain access to the FD!

[Human Factor]

Secondly - much as I respect the pilot community, shoeless or not, surely Egyptair 990 teaches us that no-one, even a pilot with airline security clearance, is completely above suspicion?

True, but Egyptair 990 also teaches us that it's pointless getting a pilot to remove his shoes.:ugh:

[Ropey Pilot]

Security are not on a power trip, they are just doing their jobs! I would never say no as it is in place to keep us all safe. If something was found I'm sure we'd thank security for possibly saving our lives.
I am sure many lives were saved by the banana that was removed from a member of our crew by security because 'it could be mashed up into a liquid'.

Or by the confiscation of a 125 gram tube of toothpaste. Despite a brief foray into the world of primary school science security could not understand that 125g of a dense substance was less than 100ml:sad:

The nice man who regularly asks me as I go to work "and could I have your shoes today sir?" is not on a power trip at all.

But the TSA thug at O'Hare who shouted - "YOU - SHOES!" was. I asked what he wished me to do with my shoes (inspect the soles, place them on a shoe scanner or x-ray them were all options). He repeated in a quite unnecessarily aggressive manner "SHOES!"; which was of no help at all. I guessed he wanted me to put them through the x-ray (but to this day it is purely an assumption). I complained to his shift supervisor and he was moved to the 'pushing bags out of the x-ray machine' part of the operation and glowered at me till my flight was called (I was SLF at the time).
Whether we should be subject to the same security as pax is a circular argument on many threads here. For me that is not the issue - we currently are.

That does not mean that it should give people the right to be abusive and or just downright rude. Unfortunately many are and they are in the unique position that most (crew and pax) are too scared to complain about behaviour that would be totally unacceptable anywhere else for fear of losing their job/missing their flight.

I usually only remember those who are rude/on power trips; and it is those I mention as people who simply do their job courteously are really not worthy of a rant:hmm:

[niknak]

Blimey 420! thats a bit OTT mate!
I merely speak as someone who, to enable me to get where I am today, have done many different jobs and worked at all levels with every type of individual in many different industries.
As such I have first hand experience of doing a job wher strict regulations have to be enforced by the people on the front line whilst having to endure the pompous crap from a few self opinionated ego's, (and that includes doing airport secuirity work).
Now I accept that the very large majority of aircrew and aviation personnel are extremely co operative in the security process because they are professional people who accept that it's a necessary protocol which everyone has to tolerate to, hopefully, prevent a reoccurance of what has happened already, or worse.
The vast majority of Security staff are taken on on the minimum wage and trained to do their job within strict parameters, there is very little leeway.

So if anyone is going to criticise, blame the DoT - its very easy to blame those on the coal face but you haven't any reason to if youve nothing to hide (apart from your own inflated sense of importance).

That said, the screening process is not a great deal to ask and doesn't inconvenience anyone.

What I do object to is your reply to my post, "HERR Niknak"?
For goodness sake!
If you had any balls at all you would apologise for what I assume is an alcochol induced slur, which we all make from time to time and get on with life.

[J-Class]

Hmmm, I take all your points - yes, the captain already has access to the flight deck.

Let us suppose for a minute that the whole shoe bomb concept isn't completely absurd, and that it might in fact be possible to put some live explosive, enough to bring down an aircraft, in the heel of a shoe. The shoe security check makes that assumption. It's not a great leap of faith to also believe that a timer and detonator could also be incorporated into said heel, in which case the possibility of a shoe swap (let's face it, it happened all the time at primary school!) where the captain might not know what was in his shoe, starts to materialise.

As I say, this is an example of starting with an absurd proposition and then squaring it, but isn't the general idea to ensure things brought on to the plane are screened (some items randomly; some always)? The motivation of the passenger, or crew member, is not neccesarily the operative factor.

[glad rag]

That said, the screening process is not a great deal to ask and doesn't inconvenience anyone.:hmm::hmm::hmm::hmm:

Yeah sure.:bored::bored::bored::bored:

[niknak]

glad - rag

Yes, I've heard of justified complaints of this going on and whilst it does happen it's very rare and the premis is no justification for refusing to co operate.
If an assault does take place, make a huge fuss and a scene, call the police and make a formal complaint.

[Re-Heat]

Yes - the flight deck access thing - a little unnecessary as a comparison.

Consider the captain who might wish to (a) hijack the flight without coorperation of the P2 and needs a necessary implement, (b) wishes to smuggles guns/drugs, or (c) wishes to injure / kill / assassinate another crewmember or passenger.

While all fanciful, the "I have access to the flightdeck" argument is tired and misleading - it assumes that the only bad thing you can do is to fly the aircraft into the ground, or fly it elsewhere once P2 has been locked out. There are many more scenarios that certainly require the same security on all the crew. And indeed on armed security marshals should they be flying that day.

[LH2]

PFJI, as a non-commercial pilot.

I do object[1] to having a fellow civilian patting me down or going through my things, so something which has worked for me so far is to request that any searches of my person or belongings be done by a police officer or the military. Invariably so far it has resulted in a search being carried out politely and conscientiously by professionals who understand what they're doing.

I like to think that by doing that I am making a small but real contribution to security (leaving aside the debate about the effectiveness of those searches), and to society by not letting citizens be forced to intrude on each other's privacy. I am more than willing to accept the small inconvenience of having to wait a few minutes for an officer to attend when there is none present--doing otherwise would be egoistic.



[1] As is my right, which is why they have to ask for permission.

[Ladusvala]

Seriously J-Class... the terrorists making a shoe swap so that the pilot brings a bomb in his shoe on to an aircraft??!!
Well, actually that exemplifies how much reality there is behind todays security screening of pilots.

[Ladusvala]

Re-heat, you know that the pilots are locked up on the flight deck, both with free access to a fire ax, don´t you?

[Clarence Oveur]

It didn't take long for the 'non-aircrew-chip-on-their-shoulder' crowd to chip in with their 'don't-think-you-are-anything-special' driven arguments.

Perhaps those who come up with imaginative (a) (b) or (c) scenarios , could instead provide just one example, of where security have stopped a cockpit crew member of doing any of the things they suggest, or even an example of anyone actually having done what they suggest.

[foxmoth]

doesn't inconvenience anyone.

Niknak,
You obviously come to work in underpants and no shoes as that is the only way you can go to work without being inconvenienced - Take off shoes, remove all keys, coins, mobile phones, jacket, laptop - then still get frisked and spoken to rudely because you forgot to remove the foil wrapped cough sweets - no, not an inconvenience at all:\
Whilst I agree a degree of security is needed there should in today's security situation be security profiling - and bona fide crew should be well down the list instead of at the top as seems to be the case.:rolleyes:

[RoyHudd]

Last week , I asked a UK security guard at PIK how many bad things had ever been found in shoes, and his response was "None, it's ridiculous, isn't it?".

Stupid business, I don't think that the authorities review existing procedures, just devise new ones. No feedback system seems to exist, either from the guards or their potential terrorist targets.

Saw one at MAN hassling an old lady who must have been over 70, yesterday. Saw the same thing happen at GLA last year. I, for one, have no respect for these people, despite the fact that the stupid behaviour comes from a relatively small number of them. And for the people that invent the wrong and non-discriminatory rules, I wish them many sleepless nights. (Mild, that one)

[flash8]

Terrorists rarely work alone. Once airside, a crew member could pass contentious material to another crew, a passenger or a cleaner (you get my drift) and such material could be used days-weeks-months later. Just needs planning, something terrorists aren't short of.

.

[czechvoyager]

This is my maiden post, so bear with me. Seeing the flight crew undergo the same srutony might put some of us pax at ease, personally I think it's a bit over the top. There seems to be a variation in degree of tightness at airports, including the level that the metal detectors are set at. I'm a frequent pax, and allways travel hand luggage only, my tackle includes an iron (a normal size job), sometimes they open my bag when they see it's bulk on the screen, but then give me the all clear when they see what it is. A couple of weeks ago at KTW the security fellow called over a military type guy, who obvoiusly had the final say, which was "it's too heavy, you could hit someone over the head with it", I informed him that the said iron had been through KTW before and other Polish airports without any problems. He thought it over and allowed me to carry my "weapon" onboard, but in future I'd have to check it in. If you wanted something heavy to hit somebody with all you have to do is buy a bottle of malabou in the airside shop!

[p7lot]

I always wear clean socks, complete with the day of the week on the side.
So a cursory check is neither embarassing or demeaning to me.
It usually starts a conversation as to whether I know what day it is (the days are brightly coloured).
This gives me an opportunity to politely converse or give a contemptuous look at the commentee.

With power comes responsibility, we must use it wisely.:)

[Evilbob]

Perhaps those who come up with imaginative (a) (b) or (c) scenarios , could instead provide just one example, of where security have stopped a cockpit crew member of doing any of the things they suggest, or even an example of anyone actually having done what they suggest.

I believe there was an incident on a FEDEX (?) flight where an employee riding jump seat took a hammer to the Captain and FO.

Obviously this flight wasn't transporting Pax but it serves to illustrate that these sort of incidents can happen. I don't remember all the details but the crew did a fantastic job in recovering the aircraft depsite sustaining awful injuries.

[Ignition Override]

In uniform they never ask me to take my shoes off.

And they are Rockports, which have no metal.
Incidentally, I heard a rumor that a pilot keeps a ceramic tool which can not be detected in his/her flightbag.

Flash 8:

US authorities made the front page news two days ago when they discovered that foreign outsourced maintenance could allow a security threat to take place.
Years ago after the Valuejet (now Airtran) engine lost a turbine blade which went through the aft cabin, causing a flight attendant serious pain :ouch:, it was revealed that the engines had been overhauled in Turkey.

[Clarence Oveur]

It wasn't meant to be a competition Evilbob!

I suggest we then remove the fire-axe(s), fire extinguishers, oxygen bottles, knives and forks from the galley, coffee pots, hot cups, cabin baggage, seat belts, shoe laces and anything else that could possibly be used to inflict damage or injury. You want my pen too?

[two green one prayer]

Cavorting C. For whom do you fly? Are there any vacancies? What is the pay? Do you pay them, if so how much?

[call100]

Clarence Oveur
It didn't take long for the 'non-aircrew-chip-on-their-shoulder' crowd to chip in with their 'don't-think-you-are-anything-special' driven arguments.Thats because you are not anything special...You are just an employee going to work and nothing more.
On an average day I go through the security search procedure 9 times. The record so far is 19.
The situation is such that on everyone of those occasions I could circumvent the checks. I am trusted to go through the checks whenever entering the RZ.
Yes they are inconvenient, yes, they are of dubious validity. They are however the rules we all have to work under. The rest of us do it without moaning constantly. Lobby your MP's. Only the Government can change this situation. Until then try and face it like a man....:rolleyes:

[londonmet]

We get searched as TRANSEC believe there to be sleepers amongst our community. If you don't grumble and moan about it then it is not a real bother. If you get hot under the collar everyday then you need to chill out and learn to accept it. It is not an ideal solution but until them up stairs change there ideas then it's here to stay. Needless to say the minions at BAA searching you have no power/influence on changing this policy.

[loadcontrol2majortom]

I do believe that all airside personnel should be subject to the same level of searches.

However, the way the serches are conducted seems to be a bone of contention.

For example, on travelling throught the security point a colleague was following a workman who was waved through whilst carrying a 12" diamond blade cutting machine. My colleague, who has worked at the airport for a number of years, was then stopped and told to remove the metal fork from his bag which was duly confiscated.

God forbid if you try to bring a yogurt through!!!!:ugh:

[Hans Modrow]

If the security staff want me to put of my shoes.They'll remember me for the rest of their life.This ugly smell of my feet... :}:}:}

[Evilbob]

What no prizes? :sad:

I suggest we then remove the fire-axe(s), fire extinguishers, oxygen bottles, knives and forks from the galley, coffee pots, hot cups, cabin baggage, seat belts, shoe laces and anything else that could possibly be used to inflict damage or injury. You want my pen too?

I don't deny that any of the above could be used as an offensive weapon. Nor did I suggest that security checks were right or wrong.

However:

Why assume that the guy queing infront of you in his nicely pressed uniform is actually a pilot? Why assume that the individual is actually attempting to get on the flight deck? Maybe all he/she needs to do is get airside unhindered. That would be really easy if all you had to do was impersonate a pilot who isn't subjected to the same scrutiny as the SLF. The name Frank Abagnale ring any bells? He convinced people for years using a uniform and forged documents.

[Striker]

The problem is that these "security" personnel don't seem to have (or are allowed to use it) any common sense. Two examples as SLF:

1) Having bought a Sunday Times, I had the audacity to try to go through the intial security check at LHR T1 with the afforementioned paper in a carrier bag and my normal hand baggage. Of course I was stopped because this was TWO items of hand baggage. However, if I gave in the carrier bag and just held my newspaper in my hand this would be allowed. So what should have been a (relatively) simple pass through security, became a real struggle and inevitably I held up the queue because it was tricky.

2) I go through the routine every time I pass though security of having to put my laptop bag (containing the laptop), into my rollerboard to comply with the ONE item if hand baggage rule, and then when I get to the X-ray machine, instead of it being a simple procedure of extracting the laptop from the laptop case, I have to first go back into the rollerboard, and therefore hold up the queue again.

It's absolutely ludicrous. Isn't the ONE hand baggage rule supposed to speed up security?

[call100]

....and of course, how do we know that the Pilots family are not being held to enforce his co-operation?????

[LH2]

how do we know that the Pilots family are not being held to enforce his co-operation?

That one's easy... Duke for pilot :E

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2007/db071018.gif

[Monarch Man]

....and of course, how do we know that the Pilots family are not being held to enforce his co-operation?????

Or the security mans family......
Or the policemans family....


Whats good for us, ought to be good for them :ugh:

[Rainboe]

To the OP - is an airline captain's position and dignity really so insecure that they can genuinely expect their gravitas and authority over their crew to be materially diminished by the denigration of being seen shoeless?

Not just shoeless. Those TSA monkeys at JFK had me shoeless, jacket off, belt removed and trousers undone, in front of passengers and crew. Next time I will insist on it being done in private. Perhaps if we all insisted such nonsense takes place in private, and aviation gets snarled up, there might be a rethink!

There is no security when it applies to the pilots- it's all a total waste of time. They can remove my nail clippers- when I get on the aeroplane I have a steel crash-axe/crowbar on the flight deck. In my hands I have anything up to 240 tons of aeroplane holding anything up to 150 tons of kerosene. Exactly why do I need to go through security again? So can we establish that any security applied to pilots is largely a waste of time? For show only?

[J-Class]

Rainboe and Ladusvala - no, security applied to pilots isn't a waste of time.

As you'll recall, in 1986 a pregnant woman flying out from Heathrow to Tel Aviv was found carrying a gift-wrapped bomb. It had been given to her by her Palestinian "boyfriend" who told her it was a Christmas present. It was found by El-Al security staff during a routine baggage-search.

So there are two levels of potential flight deck problems - (i) those intended by the crew themselves, which may be hard to prevent but which can be mitigated (just because you have the fire axe and the 240 tonne airliner, there's no need to let you care a dagger too!) and (ii) the shoe-bomb swap -
Christmas present bomb theory and its analogues, where your position may be taken advantage of by a third party, and security is there to stop this.

As for the TSA at JFK, I've experienced their full treatment as well and it isn't fun - indeed it goes some way towards being a public humiliation. It's still nothing, however, to the treatment it's possible to receive at TLV (the Israelis are more courteous than the US TSA but it's not a fun experience at all!)

[Rainboe]

Nonsense! Having had my nail clipper and toothpaste tube confiscated, I get on board and pick up my crash-axe! Where is the sense in that? Is there any need to stop me having a 'shoe bomb swap' when I have the very fate of the aircraft in my own hands anyway? there is no sense in it. Any security expended on the pilots is security wasted, and it would be better spent targeting those more likely to be terrorists- the passengers! The only possible pilot 'suiciders' used no weapons or devices- they used their bare hands. No security (as in today's idea of 'security') would have succeeded in stopping them. Confiscating keys, scissors, nail files, tins of shaving foam, toothpaste, yoghurt, bottles of water, crew meals- all a complete waste of time. But it gives a lot of people a job and a nice self-perpetuating career.

[yamaha]

my god rainboe, I have to totally agree with you:D

[J-Class]

Rainboe, I'm pretty much agreeing with you that if you decide to down the plane, you'll find a way.

But I think you've rather missed the point that even while you have nothing else in mind than piloting a nice safe flight, goods smuggled by others onto your person or into your luggage could be dangerous. After all, the one sure thing about a commercial pilot is that he or she will be flying a commercial aircraft soon, so doesn't that make you a target?

I know all of this is very remote, but until a few years ago so were terrorists taking over planes armed with little more than razor blades...

[parabellum]

The worst offenders amongst security staff at airports have almost certainly never, ever, been taught how to exercise their authority so they ape what they see on the worst of television and cinema.
Plenty of organisation, including the armed and police forces, go to some lengths to teach the proper way to exercise authority without being a complete arse, not every one passes and I suspect the bad mannered security staff at airports would fall into the 'failed' category.
The bad personalities should have been weeded out, so we are back to inadequate training.

To the OP, an old service adage was, "Obey the order first and complain afterwards" - the logic being that if the order is legal then to refuse to obey simply puts you in a very indefensible position and by carrying out the order you not only have complied with a legal instruction but also have time to think it through and see if a complaint is really worth it.

[Philly Pilot]

Just for giggles.. the FO and I, along with the cabin crew, took our shoes and socks off and put them in our luggage, prior to security.

The bags went through and were duly screened whilst we patiently waited for the barking screener.."Shoes!". We all dumbly plodded through whilst the screener's face got redder as he screamed even louder. "Stop! Shoes!".

I explained that none of us were wearing any "Sorry".

He replied "Was I trying to be funny?"

I replied "No...but, here's the really funny part. I get paid almost a quarter of a million dollars a year to do my job, whilst you spend your working hours checking bags and yelling "Shoes". So..actually its you that I find really funny!"

And off we went...to the sound of much gnashing of teeth and laughing and tittering from the passengers and TSA around us.

Sometime you just have to be a ****-head. Sorry.:E

[Spaz Modic]

You gotta laugh - all the way to the cockpit.
Here come a bunch wearing uniforms - all of them sporting massive ID cards that don't get checked. Nope -much easier and lots more satisfaction for the moron who gets great pleasure in yelling at the commander and his crew to "TAKE OFF YER SHOES!" "I'LL TAKE THOSE NAIL CLIPPERS!"
And they ARE morons.
They are also named Abdul, or Mohamed, or Nabil, or Osama, and that's only at LHR or MEL.
AND if any of you really want to fly into a building and knock off a couple of hundred bums behind - pun intended - taking of your shoes isn't going to stop it.
Maybe one day pilots will have the balls our pilot ancestors had, and stand up for the profession - but not in my lifetime by the look of it.:ugh:

[B767PL]

Crew being hassled and asked to remove their shoes, and taking their Johnson&Johnson shampoo away just leaves them...... without shampoo.
:D

Most have probably seen this but it for the most part portrays airport security or at least the TSA spot on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PmqsYvWi0U

[etrang]

Next time I will insist on it being done in private. Perhaps if we all insisted such nonsense takes place in private, and aviation gets snarled up, there might be a rethink!


That might actually do some good if enough people were to do it. Certainly ranting on a message board will change nothing.

[Earl]

Seen the same things many times, JFK is the worst regarding TSA for operating crews.
One has to remember though, before 911 most of these TSA types only knew how to say " Would you like cheese on your whopper"
Then again in MIA or many other places they are half way decent.
One day TSA will learn that you don't bite the hand that feeds you and you will catch more flies with honey..
One solution to the problem may be to have a different screening area for the crew, with the G/D sent in advance and a TSA individual trained in dealing with the crew.
But the most important thing to be changed is their attitudes towards us.
This would solve most of the problems.
Most of us are willing to comply, but with screaming and shouting is totally un called for and should be reported.

[MTOW]

My favourite (should that be 'favorite'?) moment with JFK TSA was when 'da man' tried to get me to remove my laptop's dust cover before I put it into the tray, as 'laptops had to go through separately'. My incredulous comment "It's a dust cover!" finally got through and he begrudgingy allowed it through.

However, the same guy took my glasses, which I had put beside the laptop in the same tray, into a separate tray, 'because laptops...' you know the rest.

I dislike the rigmarole of taking off my shoes as much as the next guy, but if you want my top pet hate, it's ***ing Brisbane, Australia - not the security screeners, but the 'all men are equal' bull***t they insist on where the incoming crew must line up with the passengers to go through the (much delayed) Customs screening.

I can almost hear the non crew readers of this site scrabbling for their 'reply' buttons to tell me I'm not special, but the pax have been sitting in a seat or sleeping for the last 8+ hours, the crew, especially the cabin crew, have been working and walking the whole time. It's a petty and stupid procedure. Almost every other port in the world, including most other ports in Australia, recognise that crew after a long flight need to get to bed without undue delays and provide a crew only lane, but not *** Brisbane.

[Ignition Override]

Clarence Oveur:

In the US, look at the surprise when we sometimes remind TSA staff that we have a crash ax in the c0ckpit.

And thank them for something by saying "shokran", then ask them what language it is. Then tell them that it is Arabic. They then go quite blank as you stroll down the concourse.:hmm:

[parabellum]

Brisbane may be bad but the Port of New York Authority at JFK used to have a notice up at the crew channel that said no member of crew would be cleared until the last pax of their aircraft had been cleared. Experienced it a couple of times before our company sorted it out and shortly after that we moved terminals anyway.

[Ladusvala]

To all of you sitting there dreaming up possible scenarios of how a pilot can be used or forced to bring dangerous items into an airport.

When I first began working as a pilot we had an id-card which we used to open doors to restricted areas. If someone was forcing us to open the door for him, we were supposed to let them in but add 1 to our pin code (i.e. 4647 instead of 4646), that would sound an alarm in the security "office" so that they could take action. Every such door was and is watched by a camera.

Now this procedure can be used today also. If a pilot has been made to bring something dangerous into an airport, he can discretely sound the alarm when he enters the dedicated crew screening point and then be selected for a random screening.

A terrorist would not use a pilot to bring something inside the restricted area that he himself can buy or steal in shops or restaurants on the inside.
A terrorist would not use a pilot to bring a liquid bomb inside the restricted area for him, when he and some fellow terrorists can each bring 100 ml inside and make a bomb once they are through security.

What we need is separate crew screening points where the security personnel thouroughly checks that I really am me and that I have a valid id-card. (Retina scan with the data stored at the airports?!)
Then they screen my bags and myself (X-ray, metal and scent detector) for guns and bombs only, not nail clippers, pocket knives etc that you can buy or get your hands on in shops or restaurants inside the restricted area or indeed onboard the aircraft, even inside the cockpit. (Just take a normal size wine bottle from the flight attendant, use it to hit with or smash it and you have a deadly weapon.)
It´s no need to check for liquids either, because I can bring my legal 100 ml inside every day I go to work and make whatever size liquid bomb I like, by hiding it in the crew room or other suitable spot inside the restricted area.

This way you would know that the pilot really is the pilot and you would prevent terrorists from forcing a pilot to bring a gun or bomb inside the restricted area. You would also find any bombs hidden in the pilots bags.

That is a good and solid solution that all pilots can live with. It also provides real security instead of the show for the public that is used today.

This procedure should also be used for airport police and others that are not screened today, because they can also be used by terrorists.

If a pilot is a "sleeper", airport security will not stop him. He can take out the other pilot with the fire axe or a broken bottle and then crash the aircraft wherever he likes. "Sleepers" will have to be found by the security branches using completely different methods.

[speedrestriction]

To create a norm where any identifiable group are exempt from security search is asking for trouble. Having said that it would be nice to see more security staff showing some common sense and discretion.

[kate140983]

I am sure many lives were saved by the banana that was removed from a member of our crew by security because 'it could be mashed up into a liquid'.

Or by the confiscation of a 125 gram tube of toothpaste. Despite a brief foray into the world of primary school science security could not understand that 125g of a dense substance was less than 100ml:sad:

Ropey Pilot. Do you or your crew keep these things in your shoes?:)

[kate140983]

So from reading these threads I think I have come to the conclusion that SOME pilots are on power trips and think they should be treated differently to everyone else. Just because you get paid alot doesn't mean you are more important. The most important people? Have to be doctors and surgeons who save lives daily. Stop your wingeing and just take your shoes off. :p

[boeing boeing.. gone]

Kate140983

couldn't agree with you more, so they have to take there shoes off.... SO WHAT!!! same rules for everyone is the only fair way of doing it...:ok:

can't believe this thread has lasted as long as it has :mad:

[Spaz Modic]

Next time any of you go through, tell the morons: "Thanks - I'm in a hurry to get to my weapon out on the tarmac - it called a jet".;)

[METO power]

Secondly - much as I respect the pilot community, shoeless or not, surely Egyptair 990 teaches us that no-one, even a pilot with airline security clearance, is completely above suspicion?
Nowadays it would be much easier, no more fight, just but the nose down. When I go to the toilet I have no way to get back to the cockpit unless my co-pilot is so kind and allows me to come back.:ugh:

[FLCH]

couldn't agree with you more, so they have to take there shoes off.... SO WHAT!!! same rules for everyone is the only fair way of doing it...
can't believe this thread has lasted as long as it has
Then unfortunately you just don't get it.


BTW removing your shoes as a working flight crewmember is not a requirement, the TSA may "encourage" you to remove your clogs, but you don't have to. (At least that's what my airline has told me)


The most important people? Have to be doctors and surgeons who save lives daily.
I'm sure you know that if they make a wrong decision one person dies, a pilot on the other hand.... (not that I see myself as important, especially by the wife and kid)

[A Yak From Yemen]

As long as the rest of the world realizes that qantas pilots dont bow down to anything, they are gods gift,,,,,

[Fly3]

Just watched a report on CNN which highlights the fact that TSA in the USA are still failing miserably to find to find fake bombs and explosives carried through security check points by their inspectors. LAX is the worst offender as they fail to find 75% of the devices. That being the case it seems a little pointless to give security cleared crews such a hard time.

[dustybin]

you have just solved my breakfast cereal dilemma for me. I can't get the deadly stuff called milk through security but if i but if i buy a few of those wee 100ml bottles from Boots then i can have breakfast:) Can't sand crew food and not a happy bunny without my breaky and sick of cereal bars:yuk:

[call100]

Just an observation for all you people who are still going through it......Shoe removal ceased a long time ago at our place. The rules are determined by the DTR as to when and if they are instigated. If your airport (UK) is still doing it then they are probably out of date. Unless the DTR instruct each airport individually, which I doubt.
As for dedicated staff gates. We've had those for a long time. Unfortunately moaning pilots often slow up the line there as well.:E
Most of the rules are illogical but we have to put up with them. We have to have our ear defenders x-rayed...(presumably in case we blow our heads off).

[ShyTorque]

I am sure many lives were saved by the banana that was removed from a member of our crew by security because 'it could be mashed up into a liquid'.


Perhaps it was for another reason. Don't monkeys like bananas? :)

[Stanziel]

I think we are all underestimating the importance of having less than 100 ml of liquid; because, although the pilot only needs his "bare hands" to kill everybody on board.....he'd probably need the other pilot to be away from the control stick to do it, so.....

With sufficient fluid, if one pilot got the other pilot to drink it, he could "trick" him into going to the toilet and :}, voila, the airplane is available to be crashed.

So as you see, we should all abide by and respect the 100 ml of fluid rule!:\

[BYALPHAINDIA]

Saw a PIA crew x 15 walk past me through the screening at MAN, Didn't get stopped at all - unbelievable!:=

[countdownconundrum]

We are all professionals, and we all take our jobs seriously. But.. I do get very p^%%ed off going through uk security. Just wondering if one day all refused to take our shoes off like the that ozzy guy.. what would happen? If that is out of date, I'd appreciate a link if possible. I looked at the DFT latest policy etc, but no mention of shoes.

I'll print it out, and throw it at them. The idea of the picture with the crash axe.. excellent.. have it in my light bag now, going to try it out tmrw!!

It is very annoying for us all, but unless we do something about it, whats the point in complaining??? Think the poms are used to doing what they are told!!

[beerdrinker]

North Terminal at LGW has a second security post after the main one solely for shoes. So you go through the first one and have your bag, coat and plastic bag containing your 100ml bottles of fluid x-rayed. Stop repack everything proceed about 10 yards, and then stop again, take yoiur shoes off and put them in a separate x-ray machine. Walk by that machine, wait for your shoes to be cleared, put them on again and then continue.

Madness. I thought DFTR rules were for 30% of pax shoes to be x-rayed. North Terminal do 100%. On whose authority?

[countdownconundrum]

ask them to provide evidence of this being the procedure.

[countdownconundrum]

even though u leave ur socks on?? I like it!

[countdownconundrum]

Excellent, something to throw back at the rudeness! Well done Mike.

[MarcJF]

Slightly off topic but linked. I travelled back via Rome this week with the family, as I approached security I remembered that I still had a litre bottle of water in my bag that I had meant to remove earlier. I took it out and asked one of the security guys if there was a bin, his response "you have a young family, you can keep it". I went through with the bottle of water no trouble, didn't even have to taste three 250ml bottles of baby milk.
:confused:

[countdownconundrum]

Very differing standards indeed. Obviously the uk go as far from practicality as possible. Especially treating pilots like suspects everyday of our working lives. I came back from Germany the other day, positioning the cabin but in uniform as I had been flying that day. I had a bottle of water from the last sector, and just left it as a 'test'.

The security staff were very polite and respectful, they asked about my day and we exchanged small talk for a minute or so.

In the uk, I usually say goodmorning, to have a response maybe once in a while. I have never come across such losers, so rude and pointless!

Oh well, the more inconvenience I can cause them the better, everyone needs a good flight once in a while!!

[beerdrinker]

Mike,

Great idea.

[TACHO]

Got stopped the other day and had toothpaste, deodrant and shampoo confiscated... as did the captain, made the flight back after a nightstop a very pleasant experience.... :hmm:. The cabin crew were certainly sparing in their visits to the flight deck on the way back :).


on the other hand..

So from reading these threads I think I have come to the conclusion that SOME pilots are on power trips and think they should be treated differently to everyone else.

Think we have a contender for the award for "most ignorant ill informed post of the year":D. congratulations. hope you remove that chip from your shoulder before the ceremony.



Just because you get paid alot doesn't mean you are more important

Paid alot[sic]? HA. Now I know you're merely speculating.

Have to be doctors and surgeons who save lives daily.

Am sure they wouldnt put up with being harrased 10 minutes before they go to theatre for an important operation. Piots don't save lives daily? mind you s'pose all they do is push the 'takeoff and land button'

If you dont want to listen to pilots moaning suggest then it might be an idea to go somewhere other than the professional pilots rumour network... I hear that the burger king forum is bustling at this time of year:E

[Red Top Comanche]

If the crew are having such things as toothpaste and deodorant confiscated, they shouldn't carry them.

They should order them from room service and charge them to their employers as a legitimate business expense and then throw them away after one use.

Shouldn't take too long before a bean counter starts to ask questions and accountants have far more authority than security.

[cinnamon bun]

I didn't read the whole thread but can't you put your toothpaste, deodorant....which are under 100ml in a ziploc bag and that way still be legal? I'll be flying out of LHR soon (operating int cargo) and don't want my nice after shave confiscated and used by some rent a cop.

[TACHO]

cinnamon,

as far as I am aware that would be permitted, however make sure that the size of the containers are less than 100ml, although I a squirt of shampoo, and a smidgin of toothpaste apparently the container size is what dictates it is allowed through.

On the plus side if you have load of old toiletries and the bin is a bit full, just whack em in your flight bag and hey presto... someone else will throw them away for you. :hmm:

T

[glad rag]

Mike thanks for that, without going into unpleasant details I suffered a foot problem for many (try 10) years before they went away.
I'd hate to even contemplate picking up something like that again.

[JOE-FBS]

A chance to blow-off some steam about this subject on the BBC web site:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/7066944.stm

scroll to the bottom of the article.

Obviously, it won't do any good but might help some relieve blood pressure!

[clearfinalsno1]

After a six month gap I restart this thread as the court case against the 8 x accused has just started

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7328892.stm

There's been lots of discussion so far on this thread about the ifs and buts of how they might have assembled the device. The BBC article above sheds some light on this.

Its quite strange to see the faces of those who are accused (innocent until proven guilty) as they are potentially those responsible for all our misery at airports re liquids over the last 2 years and presumably for ever more.

[PanPanYourself]

Isn't it somewhere along the lines of 80% of all airplane disasters are caused by pilots? That's exponentially higher than those caused by terrorists...
All this fuss about keeping terrorists off aircraft when the real focus should be on getting the pilot out of the cockpit...

my two cents


expecting incoming.... :uhoh:

[Beg Tibs]

Things are getting ridiculous down here in Oz..

Getting screened at a lovely airport in QLD, was pulled over and bag searched. When the lovely man pulled out an item and said "aha...found it"

What he had found was a broken arm off my sunglasses - such a weapon.

I put up a massive stink, he wanted to confiscate it so when I politely told him that would mean my whole pair of sunglasses would be unserviceable he pointed out to me that I might need to get a new pair.

Then things got rather interesting......told him Id be right back with the crash axe to demolish the broken arm so he doesnt collect broken sunglass arms to build a pair of his own..

I was "randomly" bomb searched next time I went through...in uniform

Absolutely and utterly ridiculous

*patiently waiting for the day a pilot breaks his sunnies to take over the jet*

[pasoundman]

clearfinalsno1
There's been lots of discussion so far on this thread about the ifs and buts of how they might have assembled the device. The BBC article above sheds some light on this.

I was never much convinced about the plausibility of the alleged liquid explosives. Quotes such as "A sugary drink known as Tang would be mixed with the solution to add power to the explosion" tend to reinforce that belief.

[aaronsaffer]

What really pisses me off about the airport security is that the staff probably don't know what they are looking for - rather like the scene in airplane where the old lady walks through the metal detector and gets arrested and the guy with the Ak47 walks through. I think the policy of searching everybody means that as 99.99999% of passengers are innocent they probably not even expecting a suspicious person. If you have ever experienced Israeli security, then you'll realise what true security is. The irony is however, that the staff are highly trained specialists and know what they are looking for, and yet even in a country where you are checked before going into buildings everywhere, it really doesn't bother you because the people are generally polite and there have been genuine attempts of suicide bombers being stopped by them. I've flown El Al for years and even before all this water bottle crap they never bothered to do it, even in Israel! The had faith in their staff who would wander around the airports and might come and strike up a conversation with you, but they knew what they were doing. Here, I was asked by a security guard what the piece of metal was on my neck, I told him it was a star of david to which he replied you should take it off next time you come through. It's all gone mad really, when I get through everytime with a zippo lighter in my bag yet my water is a risk!

[Diaz]

The security is not for security- it is for Joe Public to feel like the 'authorities' are doing something. Understand this, and now try and think of a better solution to persuading ignorant fools that they are safe?

[Rumble]

Whats with the plastic bags though? I understand that they limit the amountof 100ml containers you can take through but security at my base wont let any containers through unless in a plastic bag.

I have one 100ml container of friut juice concentrate to alleviate the boredom of plain water on the flight. When I take it through inside a plastic bag its cute & funny if it's not in the bag its a very dangerous item. Its ONE container you can maybe guess it doesn't overfill a 1 litre bag on its own. Good grief etc.

[Lear Jockey]

What gets on my nerves is the fact that we as pilots always have to be almost naked when going through security, questions being asked about why we have a tooth paste more than 100 ml in our carry on bag (which was on the bulk but as a crew change somewhere occured you now have it on your bag!) and at the same time one collegue of those screener pass without problem beside, bell running, saying "hello guys, have a good day" and going further to his/her gate.It should be either everyone really has the same checks or when you have a security pass you don't have to go through these checks anymore period, if the authorities would be screening a bit better people wanting to work at an airport no such bull**** would happen!

[RatherBeFlying]

So the accused rounded up some hydrogen peroxide (at what concentration, pray tell) and some Tang.

Seriously if any good bang could be accomplished with this stuff, there'd be quite the horde of 12 year old boys missing fingers and eyes:rolleyes:

Not to say that the accused and the Crown don't share the same fantasies about the easy manufacture of explosives in the lav sink:}

Legally speaking there may be grounds for conspiracy by means of a unworkable mechanism if the defendants truly believed it would work:confused:

[pasoundman]

Oh they can get them for conspiracy for sure.

The liquid explosive idea is simply a total joke though. For which we now have all this absurd inconvenience. Utterly ridiculous. We have been lied to big time.

[bjcc]

pasoundman

The Jury were shown a video yesterday of a device made from the substances mentioned, and the effects were discribed as substantial.

So either, the people that put the demo together to be videoed for the court lied. In which case, I'm sure the defence will put that point, and will probably have done thier own tests.

or

That the Crown case that the effects would have been sufficent to bring down an arircraft are correct, in which case, the restriction on liquids have some validity.

Time will tell.

[Bearcat]

chap in heathrow gave the tackle a good rummage the other day in crew secuirty.....i smiled with a crooked glare......he knew if he did that to me on a normal patch he'd have been sent into the next life....

[fox niner]

Whenever an airplane crashes, there are pilots on board.
However, there have been only a handful of cases in which there were terrorists involved in mishaps.

I therefore suggest to remove all pilots from all airplanes, as they are statistically more likely to be somehow involved in air disasters.

[Flintstone]

My attention span is minimal but even I can read back one page before posting (see post #465 ;))

[pasoundman]

bjcc
pasoundman,
The Jury were shown a video yesterday of a device made from the substances mentioned, and the effects were discribed as substantial.

In ideal laboratory conditions using hydrogen peroxide of a strength not available to anyone other than approved purchasers you CAN make such an explosive. It's NOT a liquid though. It's crystalline and has to be to have the required effect.

In short, there's no way you can prepare such a substance on board an airliner.

So either, the people that put the demo together to be videoed for the court lied. In which case, I'm sure the defence will put that point, and will probably have done thier own tests.

I fully expect the defence to be incompetent. Plus I'd love to see that video.

In any case, the prosecution have already LIED about the role of the fizzy drink 'Tang'. A sugary solution DOES NOT affect the explosiveness of TATP in ANY WAY. A decent schoolkid's knowledge of chemistry should tell you that much. In fact, being a solution in water it would REDUCE any explosive effect, possibly to NIL

or That the Crown case that the effects would have been sufficent to bring down an arircraft are correct, in which case, the restriction on liquids have some validity.

Time will tell.

Time is not required to tell that the whole story is a bag of ****.

In particular, the claim that a 'sugary liquid' meaning a fizzy drink will enhance the explosive effect is plain BERSERK ! TATP is not an oxidiser based explosive so any amount of sugar is wholly IRRELEVANT !

The Crown Prosecution is as mad as BA's management. I've a mind to write to the High Court to advice they're being told OUTRIGHT LIES !

[bjcc]

pasoundman

Oh dear, you are bitter....Still, we'll see what happens. I mean if you can work out it's a Goverment/Police/CPS/MOD/MI5/Croydon Boy Scouts stitch up, then even an 'incompetent' defence Barrister will point it all out, and have no difficulty in distroying the crown case. Although your input could be just what they need.

I've not seen nor heard yet how the demo device was made. Nor the condition of any device which was found assembled at the time of arrests, or the conditions in which the devices were, or were going to be, assembled. I presume you have insider knowladge of that.


Please do write to the court, although it may be quicker to write to Woolwich Crown Court, where the case is being heard, rather than the High Court.

[jackharr]

One airport I used was staffed by a security chap who seemingly NEVER washed and had the most appalling Body Odour.

Landing in a 35 knot gusty cross wind was a minor challenge compared to being frisked by that guy.

Jack

[mumbo jumbo]

bjcc, stop being a thicko! :rolleyes:

Even those of us with limited knowledge of the law can differentiate between the conspiracy to commit acts of terror and the likelihood of those accused of the plot of actually achieving their aim of producing a viable explosive device with enough power to destroy an a/c.

Yes, the accused are a bunch of brainwashed idiots with a 7th century attitude. However, the bullcrap being bandied about by the government and DfT about the likelyhood of them being able to produce a viable explosive from over the counter peroxide and a sugary drink mix is little more than knee jerk reaction and an attempt to save face. Once they'd hyped up the likelihood of there being a viable explosive they couldn't back down as they'd already caused millions of pound worth of damage to the industry.

There are two arguments or discussions going on here. One is the conspiracy by the accused to cause massive destruction and the other is could they have created a suitable explosive mixture that was viable. Too much crap to deal with now for pax and flight crew thanks to the duffers who opened their mouths immediately after the arrests and the subsequent squealing panic from the DfT staffers who put the liquids ban into force.

Those responsible for the new, knee jerk rules are just as guilty as the 8 accused of the conspiracy for the havoc, chaos and subsequent misery that they have inflicted on those of us who have to work on aircraft. Direct your venom, spittle and anger at them in equal proportions. :mad:

[Skipness One Echo]

I hate the current situation. HOWEVER there can be few people who face with the "We're not sure but we think it's possible" answers on day one wouldn't have banned liquids. It would be a bloody brave man that said no, in the full knowledge that hundreds might die. I see where we are, I see why we're here, there's hope for some gentle back tracking in the future. But at the time, it would have been a terryfying decision for the DfT. Hindsight is 20 / 20 .

[bjcc]

mumbo jumbo

As I have said, if there was, as you and pasoundman seem to think, no ability to commit the offence, then it will no doubt be brought as part of the defence. The full case hasn't been made to the Court yet, so assuming that something isn't possible, when you don't know all of the circumstances is a bit premature.

If you are right, and it was nothing more than a knee jerk response, then the restrictions could have been lifted long ago, without any loss of face. They have not, would that be because someone wants to continue to cause damage to the industry? Isn't that stretching credability a bit far? As with many things in life, someone knows more than you, and unless you have access to everything that the Police and the Sec Service are sat on, again, assuming that you are right is a dangerous proposition.

How much damage is being caused in reality? Not much from what I can see, Heathrow is as congested as it was before these restrictions, a good indication that it isn't causing as much damage as some on here suggest. I've not looked for pax numbers before and after the restrictions were imposed, it would be interesting to see if they are down really down, or not.

[pipistrelle]

Lots of good unemotive posts on this topic but I can't help thinking back to the reason that our government went to war in Iraq was over the alleged "Weapons of mass destruction" threat, which could allegedly be deployed within 45 mins. Shame that they ignored the experts then (so much so that one "comitted suicide") why now are we being used as the government's whipping boy to allow them to have access to everything in our life which can be stored on a "secure" ID card, especially since the main holder (BAA) is only another private company who will probably sell on all of this information to other "interested parties" for marketing purposes. What next "Soylent Green"???

[airsound]

BBC Radio 4's 'File on 4' has just broadcast a special programme called 'A Terminal Failure' about (surprise surprise) T5.

But, in a slight thread drift of his own, reporter Julian O'Halloran also touches on the experiences of American Airlines at T3, where their number of flights delayed by crews being held up in security has increased significantly over a year ago. Their Europe Customer Service Head Honcho says LHR is their worst European airport.

It's worth a listen (40 mins long). The T3 delay stuff comes up, I think, about 25 mins in (haven't checked since I heard it live).

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/fileon4/fileon4_20080429-1729.mp3

Enjoy.....

airsound

[Dont Hang Up]

The current disproportionate and logically inconistent security rules are based on a fear amongst politicians.
It is not the fear of terrorism as such, but rather the fear of the political damage they could suffer at the hands of the press if something occurs which they could potentially have prevented.
As a consequence our freedoms as individuals are ridden over rough-shod. And flight crew and SFL alike have to queue up, belts and shoes in hand, like so many prisoners returning from a day in the community.
I do not deny the terrorist threat. But I for one would like to show a little more defiance and a little less humilation in the face of that threat.

[NR54]

Have any of you ever seen what happens when you mix peroxide with sugar and then detonate it?
Thought not.

[Turn and Burn]

Pack cigar shaped tube with C4. Insert into orifice. Pass through security where even body check will not find hidden item, nor will much trumpeted body scanner at T4. C4 is not difficult to obtain in rogue states and is both easier to transport, easier to conceal and considerably more effective than peroxide and sugar.

Current bunch of home grown terrorists are amateurs, but help from rogue states would transform their capabilities. In the meantime security staff pretend they are keeping us safe and we humour them.

Ruth Kelly is the minister in charge of transport security. She is a numpty of the first water and the security staff follow her lead.

[radicalrabit]

security at airports moves the threat to just outside the fence ! There is no defence against a determined terrorist and joe bloggs with a .50 cal weapon outside the fence is going to do more harm than mrs Wilson with a jar of devon toffe or rasberry jam from cornwall.
Scew ups in intellegence over the past few years have made it plain that the governemts and agencies becom pawns to the mind games of the --------------(fill in the gaps for your own view on nationality ) agencies who wish to create a constant state of alert and fear of attack for their own political and financial ends.
We had 30 odd years of the IRA who posed a real threat and we didnt go through all this crap . You get some twerp from a foreign power who sees an advantage for pursuading the world that there is a huge terrorist threat world wide and we end up like this. So the polititions create the terror no one else.


Putting the airline pilot through security ? who dreamed that up? As if the pilot hasnt got more opportunity to take out the plane on take off without need of any weapon and long before any other crew member can react to stop him !!!!!
Pure political tripe !!!!!!

The height most aircraft fly over our house, I could do it untold damage with a brick on a (oops better not let on where i live or ill be getting arrested)
lets get a new set of numpties in power, I am sure they cant do a worse job than the last shower ! Id rather vote for the green party or the monster truck revitalisation party or jeremy clarkson than this shower. END OF RANT !!!!

[fyrefli]

Well, this just takes the biscuit:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/no_fly_list_grounds_us_air_marshalls/

"According to the Washington Times, in the years since the widespread dissemination of terrorist watch lists, airline customer service reps have repeatedly turned away frustrated Federal Air Marshals (FAMS) whose names match or bear an uncomfortable resemblance to names on whatever dodgy watch list is at hand. Feeling safer now?

"In some cases, planes have departed without any coverage because the airline employees were adamant they would not fly,” one unnamed air marshal told the paper. “I've seen guys actually being denied boarding.” Another unnamed marshal chimed in that a colleague “has been getting harassed for six years because his exact name is on the no-fly list.”"

[piton]

Seems like cosmic justice to me! ....:O

[North Shore]

Off on a bit of a tangent, but apropos nonetheless, methinks...check out this toy from Playmobil..and read the reviews!!

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002CYTL2/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

[spannersatKL]

North Shore
Brilliant, the reviews are what we all feel.....I hope.....
Hopefully the first stage of the necessary changes to get rid of this stupidy have taken place last Thursday, the public finally seeing what a bunch of washed up to$$ers are ruling us at the moment.....Please can we rid ourselves of Broon, Lackie Jackie and and that bloke Ruth Kelly!!! :}

[Airbrake]

Have contributed to the reviews, it has potential...

[Doug the Head]

Another compelling argument to be based outside the UK!

[pilotbear]

surprise surprise NR54 a probationary ppruner with one posting defending the bull****:ugh:

[Exnomad]

As SLF recently on a flight from outside the EU. There was no restrictions on cabin baggage or fluids. It is presumably OK to blow up aircraft inbound to the EU, as long as you do not do it outbound.
What a nonsense.

[NR54]

Not bull**** squire. I have actually seen a controlled explosion made by combining those ingredients. It's bloody scary!

[AARAB]

May I add my 10 cents here.
I had the most frustrating time in Heathrow by security.
As a Captain of a A340 I was told to wait in line in a que that was marked crew priority, then I had my toilet bag searched to remove my shaving cream, never mind the nail scissor though.
Then my FO had his nail scissor removed while but not his shaving cream.
This is a clear indication that the security is a load of crap, I cannot fly my aircraft with shaving cream while other crew fly armed with guns.

[Capt Claret]

Claret removed the roof racks from his Nissan Patrol the other day, and on Sunday turned up to work with the allen key type device still in the work pockets.

It was sent through the x-ray machine with keys, phone, wallet (magnetic strips set off alarm), glasses case, biro, glasses, security cards, thumb drive etc. etc. No questions asked.

Next day, at the domestic terminal of a West coast International Airport that had recently closed for 12 hours because of flowers, I was denied entry with the tool, because it was a tool.

Grabbed my gear and refused to proceed. :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

ps can anyone offer me a lift home to the East coast?


http://www.pegasus.bigpondhosting.com/PPRuNe/roof_rack_key.jpg

[Otters2000]

I assume, NR54, that 1 litre of peroxide would be enough to cause a suitable boom?? (10*100ml bottles which i believe to be the max)

No liquids (as annoying as it may be) would be perhaps understandable, but to allow a small amount seems completely pointless :ouch:

[Ron & Edna Johns]

Sydney - Perth (~3000 km) : liquids permitted.

Sydney - Auckland (~2000 km) : liquids NOT permitted.

Hong Kong - London: OK to buy duty-free liquids once passed through security.

Hong Kong - Sydney: Absolutely NOT OK to buy duty-free liquids once passed through security (secondary screen at aero-bridge will set you straight).

Blunt, unbreakable metal butter knife on Australian aircraft: NOT permitted.

Plastic knife on Australian aircraft, able to be shattered into such sharp pieces that you could slash throats: freely handed out to passengers!

Glass bottle full of $$$$ Penfold's Grange: NOT permitted.

Identical, empty, still breakable glass bottle: QUITE OK!

Is ANYONE sort-of thinking or saying, "Hey, we've lost the plot?"

[flyinthesky]

Lost the plot!!!

Crikey, the lunatics are running the asylum.

I have given up even trying to think about what I can and cannot carry on. And that's when I go to work. Jobsworths, thickos, idiots. All put in positions of limited but irritating power. All in the name of safety and security.

And still the system has glaring, gaping holes in it that are readily obvious to anyone working within the industry.

But how do we change? We are surrounded by arse covering and references to health and safety to justify ridiculous practices. Tell me how wearing a yellow jacket to carry out my walk-round keeps me safe from an errant tug driver. Is he colour blind and can only see yellow? Is he unable to see the freshly washed bright white shirt on my back? No of course he can see me, but a faceless idiot whose job is solely to think up new 'procedures' thinks he has come up with a worthwhile rule.

The same is applicable to our current security regime. The same one incidentally that keeps trying to stop me taking a pair of compasses when I fly on an ETOPS route (yes, we still occasionally have to draw a plotting chart!!!) They are dangerous! Not 'alf as dangerous as a crash axe in my colleagues head.

I ask you!!!