Frustrated (?) pilots and security screening

[smudgethecat]

Best one for me was a incident recently when passing through security i had a plastic fork confiscated as it was deemed a offensive weapon however the leatherman multi tool with its multitude of razor sharp blades i also had with me was deemed acceptable as its classed as a tool, which as an engineer i need ...... the worlds gone bloody mad :ugh:

[Vrille]

26 pages, yes 26 pages of moaning and nothing has changed, nothing at all. Always the same farcical security regime of fear and intimidation of our pilot workforce:ugh:.

Nobody here is able to change the course of our condition as operating flight crew. About 2 years ago when this stupid new regime came in force I wrote and e-mailed to the CC chairman of my company (who happened to be part of the NEC of notsobig BALPA) to voice my concern and suggest solutions to improve the security system (IE: pilots being part of the solution and not the problem). Not even an acknowledgment from that individual! It says it all really :rolleyes:...

It just proves that all BALPA can show towards its members is contempt; couple this with the shambles that is LHR and all the rest of a sinking system that UK plc has become makes me vote with my feet...... I'm looking for new opportunities on the continent now. Since I'm not british it won't matter !!:E

[anotheradam]

Do the security guards get screened as deeply as the air crew before receiving their passes, and do they get checked each time they pass through to airside?? If so, who screens the screeners who screen them, and are they screened? And if so- - - - - - -.
The buck has to stop somewhere, and though pilots' passes should certainly be checked, the removeal of shoes and bag checking is goin too far, and as man ybefore this post have pointed out, we don't need a weapon of any kind if we really do want to cause damage.

[wiggy]

There is at least one country ( not the UK) where the screeners are screened at the start of their shift and then not checked again, no matter how often they transit from land-side to air-side. I've seen them go through archway detectors, set of the alarm and continue unchallenged. I've "discussed" the logic of this with their supervisors, filed MORs about it when I've got back to the UK. Apparently these people are sworn and badged employees and therefore can be trusted not to bring anything illegal into the Restricted Area........

Lunatics/Asylum..etc

[ILoadMyself]

Newsnight's lead story tonight (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2008/05/wednesday_7_may_2008.html) indicates that a double standard exists over security screening for airside employees.

Foreign nationals do not have to undergo criminal records checks because it would be too complicated and cause delays. Mr Bean's lot have taken a business decision. I'm sure BAA and the ground handling companies have done a similar cost/benefit analysis.

Jim Fitzpatrick MP could not say how many foreign nationals are employed in airside posts.

He is confident, however, that any convicted foreign terrorist now working airside at a UK airport is subject to the same level of security check as any passenger traveling through a British airport.

So that's alright then.

[INKJET]

Its called Brown's Britian
Not bad considering he's a Scott, an Irksome one at that

ps What does Dour mean? other than useless, boring,witless,clueless,devoid of any ideas, what happens when people leave the M6 for the A74 do they leave the brains behind?

[Basil]

Old news. They never have been checked.

[ILoadMyself]

Basil,

Your profile says it all!

Chipmunk, indeed!

[Bucket]

With a thread this long I have to confess that I went to the end. I fly corporate but ocassionally pax back with mainline (thanks folks, you always spoil us when we get on board). Since we are not subject to restrictions with numbers of bags we often travel with two. I have lost count of the amount of times I have had a run in with spotty faced yoofs masquarading as security. I ask for little except a small modicum of respect and courtesy but the little b@"*&!#ds take great delight in making the whole process and tedious as possible; and only in the UK. Why do we have the monopoly on these irksome little gits. The certainly did not attend polite school.

Walk this way for a strip search please and wait here whilst I get the Vaseline and gloves. :hmm:

[tom775257]

Another loophole:

Consider an English national who works for a foreign airline, but is based short term at the airline's base in the UK. (s)he will not have a CRC but will be a UK pilot working from the UK, using an ID provided at a foreign country.

Funny world aint it.

[qwertyplop]

What can anyone say? Apologies if this is considered the incorrect part of the forum for such a thing to be posted upon.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1936419/Foreign-criminals-work-at-airports-unchecked.html

[lplsprog]

Another cock up from incompetant officials,when will it stop. Nobody should work airside if not cleared fully := and if that means long delays for foreign workers so be it!

[GS John]

Wonder if they have to do GSAT training, or are they excused that :rolleyes:

At least when we have non-compulsory ID cards it won't happen :ugh:

[Jaun Huw Nose]

Do catch up chaps, we've known about this since the vetting was put in place!:rolleyes:

[Serenity]

Agree, this has been known for ages, if you are a UK national you have a history which has to be checked before you get an airside id. If you enter the country, there are no checks done on you as you don`t have a history here!
Surprised it`s taken this long for cetain areas of the establishment to catch up!! :ugh:

[wiggy]

So if Jim Fitzpatrick MP is truely happy with security arrangements for Non-UK resident/Foreign Ramp workers and Crewmembers could he tell us what the point is in subjecting UK Nationals/Residents to the extra hassle of the UK CRC process? In some UK airlines it is quite possible to be in a situation where the majority of crewmembers have not been subject to meaningfull Criminal Record Checks, which IMHO renders the whole CRC process utterly pointless - but most of us here probably knew that anyway.

As with others I have to ask why it has taken so long for some in the establishment to cotton on to this debacle?

[50west]

Vrille

BALPA does not have a majic wand.

There are times when they need help from the troops. I know they have been asking, nay pleading, for written reports of cases where the security regime has lead to anger and stress.

How many have they recieved? very few. So either there is not a problem or the pilots are not that bothered

If you had any idea how many man hours are spent sorting out the constant flood of security issues that keep popping up.

May I suggest that you get your collegues to give BALPA the bullets.

I also think your decision to move is a fair one for reasons that good manners prevent me from airing.

[Homer_J]

Heres a situation to make your eyes water and your sides split with laughter.

At the staff search at my base my FO had his water bottle removed. behind him in the queue was a chap with a trolley full of drinks for, I'm guessing WH smiths or O'brians. his liquids went through the same scanning machine but were ok. Not even a raised eyebrow from the security staff. There were a few other pilots in the staff search. We all looked at each other and sighed.

About a week ago I was followed through staff search by two women each carrying 2 2litre cans of white paint. For some reason they were allowed through.

If your aircrew your buggered. If your ground staff, you could probably get a swimming pool through with no hassle.

A few months ago all my crew were told to take there shoes off. the next day the same thing happened. the next day, again, we were all told the to take our shoes off. I refused.

I said that as far as I knew, the rules were about one in three should take there shoes off. the security chap said it was a percentage. "well so far your working on a 100% rule".

"heres what I think, you've had an audit, the audit has revealed that your not asking enough people to take there shoes off, so, in knee jerk response your making everyone take ther shoes off".

"I can get my manager if you want to make a complaint"

In the end since there was now a queue, and i was in a rush, I took my shoes off.

A few days later it was back to normal, and I haven't been asked to take my shoes off since.

god Bless the security ship and all who sail in her.

[737Jock]

I really don't believe the CRC is not done correctly.

When I applied for my ID, I had to do a UK CRC, and had to provide the equivilant from my home country. This was 2 years ago.

[slip and turn]

So if Jim Fitzpatrick MP is truely happy with security arrangements for Non-UK resident/Foreign Ramp workers and Crewmembers could he tell us what the point is in subjecting UK Nationals/Residents to the extra hassle of the UK CRC process? In some UK airlines it is quite possible to be in a situation where the majority of crewmembers have not been subject to meaningfull Criminal Record Checks, which IMHO renders the whole CRC process utterly pointless - but most of us here probably knew that anyway.

As with others I have to ask why it has taken so long for some in the establishment to cotton on to this debacle?

Jim Fitzpatrick is not only Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, but he is also the MP for an interesting part of East London, and one with an extremely multi-culturally staffed airport in it.

My own take on the messy problem (which actually is NOT the frustrations of aircrews and passengers and staff at airports) is that the Government need to be seen as completely even-handed with the way they apply restrictions, to the point of positively discriminating in favour of minorities (i.e. stopping non-minority groups in overtly inconvenient ways).

Self-evidently there is a high terrorism risk. It has to be managed.

The inconvenience and debacle we all see in the airport perhaps goes some way to balance the occasional instances where East London families are dragged out of bed, shot a bit, bounced down their own stairs backwards by their hair in front of their screaming mothers, locked up for a month and then released without much of an apology).

I have had to endure stop checks in my car and even a set-piece breathalyser standing in the middle of a multicultural London pavement (I had forgotten to fix my new tax disc on that last one) all in the name of even-handedness. I know it because I was told so on the spots, and asked if I minded. I didn't. I have decided that to good humouredly go along with it is for the public good until the balance can be maintained in better ways.

And the balance will not be addressed by another set of numpties. It requires rather more wisdom than that, and one would hope that there is a core of wisdom keeping the flywheels turning, or we have collectively (you me them) mucked things up real good.

It's taken me a while to see the bigger picture, but personally I think everyone in the front line on both sides should descend from high horses and comply good-humouredly.

The guy that refused to take off his shoes three days running risked his job, didn't he? Yet, he took them off eventually because resistance was futile.

I too have been annoyed at the high probability that I have had to remove my shoes, because I have a sore back and need to be careful.

I too have been perplexed at the limited checks on foreign nationals and the high probability that my checks will be 3x as rigorous as theirs, but we have sore minorities in our society and it appears we need to be more careful with some than with others.

I too do not rate Ruth Kelly - in fact I cannot stand listening to anything she says. I usually change channels when she is on tv or radio.

As I said, I am trusting in a core of real wisdom behind the scenes to keep the flywheels turning (call it the establishment if you like, and I do not mean DofT staffers because I've sat in a roomful of middling graders and I didn't like their me me me attitudes) ...

If THAT is not still the safe thing to do, then we are all lost and in twenty years we can confidently expect China to show us their way is best.

[llondel]

Empirical tests have shown me that an empty water bottle in the top of a carry-on goes through security just fine, at least in all the places I've tried it, and then merely needs filling up at a water fountain once airside.

The first time I did it accidentally and was surprised, then it turned into a more deliberate test. There should be no reason to consider an empty bottle a hazard, seeing as I can buy a bottle once past security and empty the contents to achieve the same result.

[chrisbl]

could he tell us what the point is in subjecting UK Nationals/Residents to the extra hassle of the UK CRC process?

As I recall, most if not all of those who are on trial for the bomb plot that set off the current security measures are UK nationals/residents.:ugh:

[crank1000]

I worked in the Termianal at EMA for 3 months. I wasn't permitted to work longer as I wasn't an EU citizen. (Aussie) Was told that because I couldn't have a thorough background check I couldn't get a premanent pass. Obviously 10 years in Aussie Navy with a top secret clearance wasn't enough.

Getting back to the thread, the lorry drivers delivering the food and drinks to the terminal weren't checked at all! You cant take a bottle of water through security but the delivery guy could give you a bottle full of acid at the delivery dock no questions asked. What the hell is going on here?

I asked the police who patrolled the airport what was going on and I was told to mind my own business.

[PGA]

@ 737 Jock:

One particular company with a particular colour goes the extra mile and also check the history in your home country, more hassle but worth its while as far as I'm concerned.

My previous UK employer, who doesn't exist anymore but flew with a flag on its tale didn't. As far as they were concerned it was a matter of ticking the box and nothing else, so who knows what the background of their foreign pilots was... We all agreed this was a joke, but then again so many things regarding security and aviation on this island are..... But thats a different thread I suppose :O

[Swedish Steve]

I work at Stockholm ARN, and we frequently have to request airside passes for Brits and other foreigners. The CAA here send a request to their home country for clearance before issuing a pass. For a Swede I can get an airside pass in 4 days. For a Brit it takes 6 weeks.

[tudeski2004]

Two colleauges of mine went to pick up a prisoner from Scotland and fly him back down to London on Tuesday ( we are all police officers ). What they told me shocked me somewhat regarding their experience at LGW. Suffice to say, I no longer feel that confident with Airport Security. I don't really want to repeat on this board what they told me, but it beggers belief.
This is in relation to airport security, not in flight security
:=

[Ozfed]

The lorry drivers weren't checked - but the guy receiving them and working airside would have been.

The point is: There is not point delivering ACID if no one can get it onto the plane...unless you are considering the possibility that an airside worker who has passed the security vetting is going to do the wrong thing.

Count yourself lucky that you were allowed to work for 3 months in a country's most important infrastructure - their airport. If I had my way no foreign nationals would be employed inside security areas at airports (0bviously discounting aircrew etc)

You cant stop everything, but you can at least make it harder for people to commit criminal/terrorist acts.

I find it somewhat amazing the number of people in these forums who criticise security measures designed to help make them safer (even if the measures have some shortcomings).

[smudgethecat]

I dont think the greatest threat comes from foreign nationals Ozfed , i think it lies with British nationals of foreign decent , were for eg three out four of the London bombers not British nationals of Pakistani decent?

[NR54]

Otters2000,
No, I think it was about 300ml.
Bloody big bang. Quite sobering actually.

[generalspecific]

Very slight thread creep, but hey its a good rant anyway.... Recently went to the good ole US of A

I have an Apic card so even when not flying I can use the APIC line which often doubles as the crew line at this airport. A shortish queue at immigration but only one person in the Crew/Apic line (a fellow pilot in uniform). He goes through and the immigration off says "crew only" to which I reply "ah yes but I have an APIC card". "but its not open today" says he.. to which I reply, "well why is the sign up then". He then trumps me with the "get back in the queue where I told you to go or I'll get security" number.. nice.

Luckily for me the immigration hall is now full with all the united nations so it takes me over an hour to get through. I would have phoned the person meeting me to tell them I was going to be late.. but oh.. I can't use my mobile whilst standing in a queue in immigration.

Finally through immigration and I head to customs. Now for context I have a CPL but its not what I do for a day job. Get pulled for the routine search and inspector Clouseau pulls out the VFR chart for New York. What's this says he... er its a map says I... I know that but what sort of map is it? An aviation chart says I.. Why do you have one of those says he.. er because I am a pilot says I..

Now he is on the verge of the big breakthrough and says with barely concealed glee... But you said on your form that you were a banker do you know it is a federal offence to lie on a customs declaration :confused: :ugh:

I then have to resist the temptation to point out that your day job and your qualifications are not mutually exclusive and that for example he could be .. at the same time.. a customs officer and an idiot...

It's so good you couldn't make it up..

[Red Top Comanche]

Scary how stupid its getting

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1234193.ece

[hotmetal]

I feel ashamed to be British. This doesn't surprise me though.

[beardy]

Even worse was this comment:
A BAA spokesman said there was no record of the incident and no "formal complaint" had been made.

"If a T-shirt had a rude word or a bomb on it, for example, a passenger may be asked to remove it," he said.

"We are investigating what happened to see if it came under this category.

"If it's offensive, we don't want other passengers upset."

So security are there to stop people being 'upset.'

Plo nkers!

[hotmetal]

The irony is they upset people everyday with their dozy attitudes and ignorant behaviour. Security in the UK airports is a disgrace.

If he hadn't removed it what would they have done? Called the police? Then it would have got really interesting if the police had carried on in the same way. What would they have charged him with? Answer ...nothing that would stand up in a court.

Does anybody know somebody who would be 'upset' by a Transformers T-shirt? Does anybody know anybody who would be upset by being treated in this way by 'security' staff? Security is not a game. If an aircraft is hijacked/bombed and it is mine I will probably lose my life. Could 'security' staff please do their job please and stop this nonsense. They are making fools of themselves.

[everynowandthen]

On a light-hearted note, my sister was coming back from Turkey a couple of weeks ago with her 4 yr old son. Granny had bought him a star wars gun & something that looked like a litter picker upper. They both had the noises and flashing lights that you would obviously need to fight a battle in space. Naturally, they were stopped at security & the nice chaps decided that these lethal weapons should be confiscated, having tried them out. Apparently, the LPU was tested on hand luggage to see how strong it was. The gun was fired but curiously nothing blew up & nobody fell over. The noises and lights were deemed lethal. Young nephew was curious as to why his toys were disappearing & my sis, not entirely happy with proceedings, decided to tell him that the men were taking them away & not giving them back. This produced the intended result, loud wailing. Naughty old Sis eh?
So picture the scene...2 burly securtiy types armed with plastic weapons going phweee phweee, complete wih flashing red lights & add to the mix one teary, red faced (& probably snotty) 4 year old shrieking very, very loudly. Realising this is a serious issue, the head of security is summoned. He then tests these lethal weapons (presumably in a very safe fashion) but still isn't happy. Now the flight deck is consulted & the offending articles are whisked off to be looked after by the very nice man who is flying the plane & handed back at the end of the flight packaged beautifully in a plastic bag. All's well that ends well eh?
I know this is off topic, forgive me but felt you needed to know about this new breed of 4 year old assassin. It's scary out there folks.

[hotmetal]

Rest assured on my flights you will find nothing but good old common sense [if I'm allowed to use it].

[Ron & Edna Johns]

Jeez, they didn't hand the star wars gun to the Captain, did they?! Imagine what he might have done - could have hijacked his own plane, or crashed it, or something....

I hope the Captain was duly stood down afterwards for having a prohibited item on the flight-deck.... I would have turned myself in immediately.

Yes, something scary really is going on out there. :suspect:

[Antman]

I have a question.....
Earthquake Bam Iran 2003 = 20 000+ dead
Tsunami 2004 = 250 000+ dead
Katrina 2005 = 1500+ dead
Myanmar 2008 = 20 000+ dead
Earthquake China 2008 = 40 000+ dead

So 330 000+ dead in the last 5 years to natural disasters

Who knows how many dead from the common old flu, car accidents, violent weather, starvation, heart attacks, crime, war etc etc......

USA 9/11 2001 = 2973 dead
London 7/7 2005 = 52 dead
Madrid 11/3 2004 = 191 dead

So 3000+ dead from terrorism in the west in the last 8 years.
May they all rest in peace and God(In His/Her various forms)comfort their families.

So tell me
WHY ARE WE FRIGHTENED OF TERRORISTS????????

And why do we put up with the idiotic so called security measures we have forced on us and all the other things since 9/11. Nearly every day now some power that be, wants to impose some new fascist control on us to PROTECT us. It really is starting to feel like Germany in the 30's:oh:

The only certainty in life is death, we don't know where, and we don't when and God willing it is painless.

[demomonkey]

Didn't a recent CHIRP article list an address/email/website where examples of poor application of security could be reported to the CAA for them to log and look into?

If anyone still has the last CHIRP could you post the address here?

[Airbus Unplugged]

It's just such a crying shame that all of this crap has nothing to do with security. It's a metaphor for the UK today. We are busy removing dignity from aircrew and disturbing their state of mind for the purposes of political window dressing.

Meanwhile, those same looney lefties are tiptoeing around the real threat, knawing their knuckles that they might offend the wrong group of people when they really want to strike the next blow in their class war. Those middle class inky swot pilots so typical of the privileged upbringing available to the bourgeois, but an occupation denied to the prodigy of the sink estates and failing education experiment of New UK.

Sorry. I can't come up with any practical suggestions, but I'm afraid that logic, pragmatism, and common sense have no place in Britain today.

[Sallyann1234]

I have a question.....
Earthquake Bam Iran 2003 = 20 000+ dead
Tsunami 2004 = 250 000+ dead
Katrina 2005 = 1500+ dead
Myanmar 2008 = 20 000+ dead
Earthquake China 2008 = 40 000+ dead

So 330 000+ dead in the last 5 years to natural disasters

Who knows how many dead from the common old flu, car accidents, violent weather, starvation, heart attacks, crime, war etc etc......

USA 9/11 2001 = 2973 dead
London 7/7 2005 = 52 dead
Madrid 11/3 2004 = 191 dead

So 3000+ dead from terrorism in the west in the last 8 years.
May they all rest in peace and God(In His/Her various forms)comfort their families.

So tell me
WHY ARE WE FRIGHTENED OF TERRORISTS????????

Antman you make a powerful point.

Which is the worst threat to a civilised democratic society:

1. Terrorism, or

2. Fear of terrorism, or

3. The authoritarian controls put in place as an alleged counter to terrorism

????

[Out Of Trim]

LGW South Terminal Staff Route was closed all last night. However, I was amazed to see that the area was still fully staffed all night. :ugh::ugh:

Although the area has to be guarded against pax trying to get from the Baggage Hall to the Departure Lounge and Staff to Exit; this could have been achieved with say two security guards rather than six or seven!

I've no idea why it was closed - perhaps the x-ray or the magnetic arch may have been U/S - If so, why still fully man them?

:confused:

[modelcuirstudios]

People that keep saying they have control of the plane anyway!! I used to say that too... But Now I think....Well a pilot could carry a bomb through to put on another plane...That's just my thought as to why they still check pilots...

[Piltdown Man]

modelcuirstudios - I do see where you are coming from, but your analysis is very poor. However, as a member of the public I wouldn't expect you to be better informed about security measures because of the prats responsible won't listen to anyone else except themselves. They also peddle their misguided thinking to the media - so having an informed opinion is not really possible. But the view from the inside is very different. Firstly, you don't need a explosives to disable an airliner, there are many other things that could be done. Secondly, would you go through the "front door" when there are enough "back doors" open? The trouble is, we have to work at airports and therefore we have to stick their rules. No matter how pointless and stupid the rules are, we have to stick to them. After all, no operations staff, no flights! Therefore, we have to go along with them. That is, until we decide to move to "the dark side", when we won't worry about any breaking rules. Then, we'll use the back-doors and the useless, rude, arrogant half-wits employed to make our lives difficult at airports won't be any the wiser until the problem has already occurred.

The real problem is people, not what they are carrying. Not until we have a solution that identifies potential threats will be have real security. What is called "security" is just theatre where the dummies are the actors.

PM

[hotmetal]

Why let police officers through with loaded weapons? They could sneak onto an aircraft and cause all sorts of trouble. They could have their family kidnapped and pass their weapon to the terrorists airside. Oh hang a minute. We trust them don't we. They have 'responsiblity'. Well how about trust the pilots too? Or is that just ridiculous?

[CAT1 REVERSION]

It has gotten ridiculous! :mad:

I operated a charter recently that ended up in EDI, we ended up having to position back to MAN with another airline (Flybe). It was a rush job getting from our a/c back landside to check-in for our positioning flight home.

On getting to security we were treated like criminals. I had the indignity of having what I can only describe as a SEXUAL ASSAULT of a search. I have never been searched in all my years of flying in that manner. To add further insult the arse that searched me then proceeded to lambast me in front of other passengers for wearing my airside pass! I explained to him I had just landed after a 12 hour day, I was wearing my pass as it forms part of my uniform (I was in full uniform).

For Christ’s sake, who do these people think they are? Do they not realise if we (flight deck) wanted to commit mass murder, it wouldn't be with an airside pass or something concealed in my underpants! :ugh:

I have no doubt that these idiots expose themselves on a regular basis for what they really are, jumped up little Hitlers with King Eddies on their shoulders. The DFT should be ashamed of their selves, they think they are combating the war against terrorism, think again, they should look closer to home at these plonkers. Only last week I witnessed an X-Ray operator asleep at staff search in MAN. :=

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

[hotmetal]

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.

If security staff are feeling your genitals it has to be sexual doesn't it? What other motivation is there? You obviously didn't consent and no security person could have a reasonable belief, surely, that you would consent to it. Therefore, I suggest, it is a Sexual Assault under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Call the police. We must not stand for it.

[Dirty Mach]

How about, on a single predetermined day, all Aircrew that experience any form of obstruction/abuse/attitude from security, we turn around and go home, stating "unreasonable behaviour by security staff causing stress before a flight". If enough flights are cancelled or delayed, the airlines will act: no-one else has the leverage on the idiots who we appear to have left "in charge".

As a body, pilots don't seem to be very good at sticking together over things like this. Sure we all whinge about it, but actually do something? Heaven forbid!

[SNS3Guppy]

I get screened every time I go through. I have yet to let my blood pressure get worked up about it. It's just not a big deal.

A lot of aircrew tend to whine too much. Get over it.

[hotmetal]

That's interesting. Do you have a lot of experience of UK security? I notice your profile says you are in the USA. Elsewhere in the world I would agree security is a completely different experience.:)

[MPH]

Who checks the security staff? I hope I get the chance!:}

[skol]

Crews often lampoon the US security staff, but the place I hate the most is the gate at LHR where they often keep you waiting for 30/40 mins. Last 2 times thru there the blonde bird running the show says it's "other crews bringing liquids through". So what, sort it out.
Maybe I'm getting paranoid because I require a response for the delay, but last time I was there the guy on the gate was summonsed over to the x-ray machine just before we were processed and I was given a 'pat down' as they quaintly describe it.

[Impress to inflate]

I am a frequent traveller through Darwin as crew and as a pax. I am always pulled up for the "Random" explosives check (my shifty eyes). One of our capt has come down hard on Darwin security and reported them to big brother as a flight hazzard. Not to bothered, it's better than LHR and way everyone is treated by "Rent-a-Thug Security plc". :=

[Abusing_the_sky]

Going through security some weeks ago i witnessed one of the pilots being pulled over by a security staff ( who was chewing his gum like it would go out of fashion and was scratching his privates,like you do, with 10 people and CCTV watching you....) and bullocked for bringing thru a can of RedBull. Mind you, it was 5am and the pilot had a long day ahead...
So he went out, took his RedBull with him, drank it in front of the snotty lad and went through the gate again. And then he turned to the chap in cause saying "Son, i have a crash axe in my flight deck. Do you actually think that my can of RedBull is dangerous?" And then walked away.
Obviously the guy didn't hear a word the pilot told him cause he started shouting at me, don't i know better, my lipgloss HAS to be in a clear plastic bag!!!!!!!!!!
Yes love, cause i use my lipgloss to threaten pax everyday...

Rant over! :ugh:

[countdownconundrum]

Not sure how much you have all heard about the NEW WORLD ORDER.. don't worry, one day when we have RFID chips inserted in our skin, they might let up on us slightly..

These pieces of crap that pat us down, and try and annoy us have nothing. They should have worked harder in school, and I have no problem reminding them of that fact.

When we pass through security and look down at the monkeys working the x-rays, just feel sorry for them!! we are better by a long shot, they are beneath us, they're just hired help! I patronise them so severely, the stupid monkeys have no idea, they're not on the same level or anywhere near it! They are as dumb as they look!!!!

Its kind of a hobby now!! make them feel as small as they really are!

it works, they tend to stay away from me now! love my job!!!

[wheelbarrow]

What is the current state on requirements for getting sucurity checked? I have been told that at LHR and LTN there is now no searching / screening of crew on the cargo ramp? Is this a welcome improvement to the requirements for carrying out screening, or an enlightened interpretation of the requirements?

[GVGIN]

If it was nt for the crap security at Boston and Newark back in 2001 we would nt be in this mess today ,but i must agree we have enough glass, sharp objects, liquids , crash axes to cause problems on board and yes we know where the threat is coming from just as we did in the days of the IRA but today as it has already been mentioned we must not offend certain groups which means we must play this silly game with the BAA and TSA ....... I wonder if any of these security people have been on airliner to see all the items we carry on board ?

[maabaa]

I wonder if some day we will come to this :
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27687 :}

Obviously 99.999% safe

[bert0503]

So tell me
WHY ARE WE FRIGHTENED OF TERRORISTS????????

And why do we put up with the idiotic so called security measures we have forced on us and all the other things since 9/11. Nearly every day now some power that be, wants to impose some new fascist control on us to PROTECT us. It really is starting to feel like Germany in the 30's:oh:



You know why? Here is why:

"the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country".

(Nazi leader Hermann Göring at the Nurenberg trials)

The people who pull the strings are not afraid of terrorists, they are afraid of the masses. Their goal is to make everybody get so used to being absolutely controlled in every way that it starts to feel like there is no other way. And they have come a long way..

[smiling dispatcher]

what a great idea!:D

[Pure Hover]

New to the forum and just caught this end of this thread whilst browsing. Couldn't agree more with early sentiments. In amongst the majority of professional security screening staff seem to be an element with a serious chip who like nothing better than to take a pilot down a step or two. Good on the Aussies ;)

[Foxy Loxy]

I was once asked to remove my shoes at E Mids when I went through security as air crew ( Pilot's Assistant). I guess they had misinterpreted the term "Killer Heels"..... :rolleyes:

[Flight Detent]

Did I relate my experience going through 'security' at JFK some time back, in uniform, with the rest of the crew.

I dared to step thru the 'magic doorway' with, oh dear....my hand in my pocket!

Luckily, they noticed that in time to have me return to the doorway, and step thru one more time without the offending hand in the pocket.

Though when asked, they couldn't tell me why I couldn't do that!!

On another occasion, I was to ferry an airplane out...so we three walked to the end of the departure lounges, and asked the security to open the lower level door, so we could simply walk across the adjacent taxiway to our airplane parked right there.
Nope..we had to wait 40 minutes for a van to arrive so it could drive us approx. 30 yards to the airplane steps. The implication here was of course that we had to be escorted!

Gee, I'm really glad I don't go via JFK any more!

Cheers..FD..:mad:

[llondel]

FD:
Though when asked, they couldn't tell me why I couldn't do that!!

If you wrap metal in flesh it's harder to detect. So you could have had something in your pocket that you were holding against your leg.

I discovered this courtesy of a federal security guard (pre-9/11) when passing through a metal detector, setting it off and being told to go through it again with my hands over my belt buckle.

[Dont Hang Up]

If you wrap metal in flesh it's harder to detect

Now where have I heard that before?

Ah yes. The Terminator.

:ok:

[mr.newfy]

or anyone unfortunate enough to have pins or plates fitted to hold fractured bones together.

[Abusing_the_sky]

This is getting ridiculous.. I have had enough of EMA security staff (someone else here mentioned them too)
Every dam time i go through security they decide to test one of the liquids in my clear plastic bag. And they always chose the most expensive one. It's only a wi bit they say. No it's bloody not!!!! That perfume cost me £50 and i apologize for wanting to smell nice and look after myself. What am i going to do with it, spray a pax to death??
And the worst part was that she went through my crew bag and decided to unwrap me all nicely foiled sandwiches for the day. Thanks a lot you c**t, now i'll go hungry all day cause i have no idea where you're hands been prior to touching my sandwiches. What am I going to do with them, threaten a pax with "cheese to death"??????.
I want to know, is there anyone who's going to do anything about these "security all the way" people?? Use your common sense love, my lipgloss is harmless, you take my RedBull away but i have plenty in the a/c, you go through my private little bag with ladies toiletries hoping to find something but all you find is my tampons and emergency tights and knickers. How bloody rude and uneducated are you???I witness you bulloc:mad:ing a pilot landside but you have no idea once airside, he has control over a dam plane and if he wanted to, he'd do some damage to make a point..
Are you lot mentally challenged???? Have some common sense for Christ Sake!!!

One more overzelous security staff and i WILL go ballistic.
I want this to stop. It makes our life hell even before we got in an a/c.
Sort it. :mad:

[JW411]

So why don't you get one of your favourite perfume bottles and fill it with the outpourings of a cat/dog/horse/pig/hamster/iguana or any other animal you that you can get to contribute including your boyfriend/husband/girlfriend/partner etc.

They will only sample that once and, as far as I know, there is no law against carrying pee in a bottle as long as the quantity is less than 100ml.

[Abusing_the_sky]

JW you are a star!!! Great idea! And maybe i'll throw in me crew bag a used tampon (i am ever so sorry for being so grose but maybe this will teach these fuc:mad:ers a lesson)

Is there a way we can just go to work, put our crew bags and handbags on the belt and just go through the "magic gate" without any hassle?!
I mean, aren't the security checks and 5 years back checks enough? Is it that they are not doing their jobs when checking the references hence why we have to go through all this $hit 5 days a week? Maybe this belongs to the Rant Thread on JetBlast but surely someone, at some point
will come up with an idea of how we can have these security people back off and let us go to the crew room stress free!

:{

[despegue]

ONLY in the UK are crew treated like criminals, no other EU country refuses operating crew to bring whatever drinks, food and cosmetics with them onboard.
I always bring my soft-drinks, aftershave, etc. with me, NEVER questions asked.
So "Great" Britain, wake-up and smell the coffee, your "Security" policies are ridiculousand frankly appalling.

[Romeo India Xray]

"appalling" - not to mention UNSAFE! I have heard of crews having ESSENTIAL medical liquids (as prescribed by their GP), confiscated in the name of safety. I am so glad to be based outside the UK now :}

[THE POINTY END]

Luton have to be among the worst. There's no continuity at all. I've been hauled up airside in uniform with I.D to be told by some spotty failed policeman that my I.D is not valid as it hasn't got LTN (LUTON) on it. Our company (orange) have a standard I.D good for all our bases and issued at Luton. they got extra security to escort me landside in front of pax. I argued the toss and after 30 mins they decided the I.D was ok. This is security not recognising the airports major operator's I.D. Each day it's off with shoes and belts. I went through the other day on a day off in jeans (with belt) trainers t-shirt, high viz and I.D to meet the other half flying in. You guessed it, not a blink of an eyelid. No shoes off, no belt off, no questions about what I'm doing/going. I just walked staight through with no problems. Remember, you're number one suspect if crew in uniform. It's DFT window dressing implimented by w***kers with small c**k/small person/under achievers complex. They're applying to people whose job it is to be "in control" of an aircraft restrictions designed to stop punters gaining control of an aircraft. I've told them I can go stark naked to the plane and still crash it by pushing, or I can go unarmed without my water and yoghurt and still pick up the big axe next to me. Bless them, they just can't grasp the idea. Keep up the good work. I respect and take you seriously.

[ExSp33db1rd]

A colleague was passing through the crew inspection room at a Far East airport, when some event airside required the presence of a squad of armed military personnel. The girl with the Magic Wand asked the crew to stand aside, and got every soldier to stand on the footstool whilst she passed the M.W. around their bodies. Their sub-machine guns, bayonets, bandoliers of bullets and belts of hanging grenades caused the M.W. to screech continuously. Once the troop had passed through inspection of the crew continued, and my colleague asked exactly what she had been looking for ? A blank stare was the answer. Q.E.D. :ugh:

[SKI]

The ONLY way to sort this out is.....a day or two of action...no flights! start of the school holidays would be good... now that would get some publicity!

[Airbrake]

The Pointy End.

I would not tell everybody you used your ID and Hi viz to go Airside on a day off just to meet your other half!

That is a big no no, consider your self lucky that security were dealing with explosive water and parfume and not catching individuals where they shouldn't be!

[MPH]

And one day, I passed through... and the beeper went off...o no!!! What are you concealing´´..I said, nothing. Out came the magic stick and it concentrated it´s self on my wings!! ´What´s that? she asked. Well, we as pilot´s, get wings on our uniforms that identifies us to the rest of the crew and the passengers and anybody else..except to you by, the look´s of it!!!!!
:=Right, off it comes´ we have to inspect to see if it´s concealing anything. To which I replied yes, it´s concealing something...my dignity!!!! Reply: what´s that´!!!!!;)

[Ron & Edna Johns]

Just coming in.... from Australia's Sydney Morning Herald newspaper. Everyone in the industry knows that, while the pilots are harassed and stripped of wings, shoes, dignity, etc, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS DRESS UP AS A COP AND WALK THROUGH, EXEMPT FROM SCREENING!

(Then again, in Sydney, every other non-pilot/non-flight attendant goes through the side gates - UNSCREENED also)


Armed officer boards Sydney flight - Travel - smh.com.au (http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/gun-on-plane-investigation-launched/2008/07/02/1214950846499.html)

Armed officer boards Sydney flight

July 2, 2008 - 8:44PM

An investigation is underway after a NSW police officer managed to board a flight at Sydney airport still carrying his gun.

The officer was in full uniform and was on duty when he boarded the flight from Sydney to the Gold Coast yesterday morning, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) said.

The officer was detected with the gun at the Gold Coast and travelled back to Sydney with the weapon in the hold.

A spokesman for the airport said: "Under Australian aviation security regulations, NSW police officers when in uniform and on duty are exempt from security screening."

An AFP spokeswoman said they were consulting with the federal Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government as well as the airport and the airline.

"We will examine the incident to see if further action is needed regarding airport security," she said.

The spokeswoman would not comment on whether any action would be taken against the officer.

"The matter has been referred to NSW Police for investigation."

Police officers are not permitted to travel armed on aircraft without specific approval, she said.

[ve3id]

You don't have to spray it on me, I am deathly allergic to perfume, just being near me would do me in.

What if your co-pilot is the same? A lot of us are too polite or too afraid of sexism accusations to say anything until we start showing signs.

Is pan pan the right thing to say when he passes out? Maybe it should be the name of a strong perfume?

[Love_joy]

JW, fair play and a good point well made.

there is no law against carrying pee in a bottle as long as the quantity is less than 100ml.

Dont start them on that one! My bladder definately holds more than 100ml, is wrapped in flesh, and wont fit in a plastic sandwich bag!

[ve3id]

doctors, plural, OK
pilot's, possessive - just which part of the pilot are you talking about?

[jetset lady]

The Pointy End.

I would not tell everybody you used your ID and Hi viz to go Airside on a day off just to meet your other half!

That is a big no no, consider your self lucky that security were dealing with explosive water and parfume and not catching individuals where they shouldn't be.

Why does this daft rule exist in the first place? If we have the correct ID and have been through the correct security channels, what's the problem?

I recently checked in for a 3 day trip and realised that I'd left my medication at home. Now due to the fact that Boots have now moved all their pharmacutical sevices to the airside store, I needed to go through to replace the stuff I'd left at home, yet I was refused permission to go through until I reported for the actual flight, 40 minutes later. (The lack of bags gave me away!) I tried to explain that, short of making the crew report early for the briefing, it would mean I would probably end up arriving late at the aircraft due to the inevitably long queues in the pharmacy, but still, they would not back down. I couldn't even go through early, then hang around airside as, once I passed the magic swinging doors (or not so swinging doors at the moment!), I couldn't get back to the briefing room to brief the crew, despite these rooms also being airside!
These are are just rules for the hell of it and in no way improve our safety and security! :mad:

Jsl

[Airbrake]

Jetset Lady.

Some unscrupulous individuals may try to off load their fags, booze, illegal substances prior to passing through Customs. Who would suspect an Id carrying member of staff???

[jetset lady]

Airbrake,

Sorry, I may be being a bit thick here but I don't get what you're saying. If they had let me go through, I would have had to clear customs to come back to landside anyway and believe me, customs certainly don't trust us! If anything, we are more likely to get caught as there are less of us coming through the staff channel, than there are the hoards of passengers going through the normal channels.

Jsl

[Airbrake]

Jetset, you may have to clear customs at your airport but there are plenty of ways to avoid it. Do you see all the airside staff at your airport walking through customs after a day working airside?

At my airport there are numerous ways to avoid going through arrivals and customs if you have a staff ID. However, you would lose your ID, job and get a criminal record if you were caught.

[jetset lady]

Airbrake,

I see your point and that is true for where I'm based too. I assume then, that this is actually an immigration and customs ruling rather than a security one. Thanks for that. Still doesn't mean I have to like it though! :p

Jsl

[rigpiggy]

Airport security tightened after drug bust
Supervisor accused of smuggling khat into Canada from British flights
Andrew Seymour, Ottawa Citizen
Published: Thursday, April 26, 2007

Security at Ottawa international airport has been tightened after a ramp attendant supervisor was charged with drug smuggling.

:ugh:Obviously BAA's security is lacking

[S78]

At the risk of thread drift, there is a problem with aircrew/airside staff smuggling goods. Customs are well aware of it and will have a sense of humour failure if they catch staff doing it.



S78

[Blacksheep]

Every day as I pass through the air-side check-point I'm x-rayed, metal detected and my security pass is scanned to ensure it turns on the green light to say I can enter. Then off I go into the hangars and workshops, where everything anyone needs to wreak havoc is nicely to hand. Toxic chemicals, detonators, electrical wiring - its all there. I don't need to carry anything at all. Soon, I'll be required to have a national identity card as well, but none of this makes the slightest difference. The only way to ensure complete safety is to shut down the airlines entirely and go back to ships and trains - after all, they're invulnerable aren't they. ;)

[45989]

Blacksheep Spot On. Just tell the Goons! They need a reason for their sorry existence

[BusyB]

S78,

In T5 staff are allowed to buy some DF items without a boarding card and not go out through customs:ugh:

[S78]

BusyB

I can only speak for my local, but some airport staff are entitled to DF rates on some items. However the shop assistant (presumably too bright to work for security;) ) makes a note of your ID card no and what you've purchased - which I guess is held on a database somewhere, so if staff start to abuse the privilege customs get to find out......




S78

[bsmasher]

The latest in how consistent this security screening lark is Policeman wearing gun breaches airport security - Travel - smh.com.au (http://www.smh.com.au/news/travel/policeman-breaches-airport-security/2008/07/02/1214950851356.html)

Its interesting to note that the police are exempt from screening while the crew are not.


And this the day after I was surprised by the AFP turning up fully armed to a plane to remove a roudy traveller.

D.

[50west]

Fellow aviators

Whilst 30pages of comment is interesting it will change 3/10ths of nothing.

What is needed is a constant stream of MOR's etc to the CAA and TRANSEC.

Over the past couple of years there have only been a handful of reports. A back of the fag packet assesment shows that there are roughly 12,000 pilots in the UK and from the past three years there have been approx 20 MOR's recieved by the CAA on the subject of the security hastles.

So viewed from the other side of the fence that is such a small number that there is no problem percieved.

I am very concerned about essential items of a liquid nature being removed from aircrew, if a pilot determines that a certain solution is essential for his or her duty and the security muppet removes it from said pilot who then continues to operate then QED "it was't essental was it guv"

I usually ask said security guard to tell the pax why the aircraft is not departing on scedule.

Regards

[paarmo]

Can I say that the more GCE's and the more money people are paid then the more they feel that they are above being treated like the rest of us plebs. Solicitors and Doctors are the worst but I think Pilots are slipping rapidly into third place. The argument here should be that none of us should be humiliated at so called security check points. Why should pilots be treat any differently than the passengers they are paid to drive. In this autopilot age they are after all highly paid bus drivers.

[hotmetal]

"In this autopilot age they are after all highly paid bus drivers."

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[MPH]

Paarmo:

So, pax and crew are the same..they have the same responsability...they get the employment background records checked...training....and actually are working in the airline just for fun. So that they can only just switch on an autopilot and let it do the rest!!! Well.. well...well, I am begining to think that you might one of those security people that just have to wave a magic stick and are suspiciuos of airline crew!!! Please let´s get down to the issues the whole idea in this post, is to discuss how absurd it is to clamp down on airline crew at secuirty checks. Now if you don´t understand what we are getting at....leave out the real responsability of flying an aircraft around the world with 300+ pax´s to us and not to the autopilot. By the way do you also want to check the autopilot!!!!:oh:

[Romeo India Xray]

Paarmo, are you security or an FSX pilot? I paid THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS for my training, followed by gaining nearly 2 decades of experience precisely to ensure that I am capable and worthy of being able to make all the decisions that "George" (as it used to be known back then) is unable to. I still exercise my judgement at every step of the decission making process, in order to ensure I am SAFE every time I go to work.

The confiscation of essential medical supplies is NOT conducive to safety neither is delaying aircrew due to searches just for the sake of it. I dont know if you have ever flown anything bigger than a paper aeroplane, but if you have you will know that you are also paid to exercise judgement in the face of commercial pressure, and said pressure is excaserbated needlessly by unwanted and unjustified "security" making our jobs significantly more difficult.

[Out Of Trim]

rigpiggy

Airport security tightened after drug bust
Supervisor accused of smuggling khat into Canada from British flights
Andrew Seymour, Ottawa Citizen
Published: Thursday, April 26, 2007

Security at Ottawa international airport has been tightened after a ramp attendant supervisor was charged with drug smuggling.

:ugh:Obviously BAA's security is lacking


Perhaps not so obvious; as apparently Khat is not illegal in the UK!
http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/forums/report.php?p=4218400)

[paarmo]

No I am not and never have been Security. If you can supply times and dates of essential medication taken from Pilots then I will believe you. Even Security are not that stupid.
Mind you I am not sure that I would like my aeroplane driver to be on medication when he is driving me. I would have thought that pilots would have to be in reasonable physical shape to cope with all of the decisions to be made which the auto pilot cannot.
I suspect that the seizing of medication from aircrew is an Urban Myth.
If you want I can supply you with lots of these..
The problem here is not that Pilots are being humiliated at security checkpoints but that we all are. There are other ways of securing safety on aircraft but unfortunately they are not easily quantifiable which is why we have the ritual humiliation system that we have at the moment.

[Abusing_the_sky]

Paarmo... are you actually aircrew? If so you would know how frustrating it is to be checked and security screend EVERY working day whilst pax are flying roughly 2 times a year.
Pilots being on medication.... Darling, have you ever considered they might, just might, be human as well? Maybe the medication is for their hey fever, or they are only taking their vitamins, at the end of they day what you are saying is completely pointless.
As for aircrew being treated differently. 2 Right i want a different treatment! Had an intensive training for weeks on end. I know the a/c inside out, i can react in an emergency with my eyes closed, you're sick i'm looking after you, you want to get safe from A to B i'll get you there safe (it's not all autopilot these days..), and i could go on and on. Point being that yes, i DEMAND a different treatment than the majority of pax, a pax who has 6 grades on his/her name and now they're going on holiday with MY MONEY (referring to tax money that come out of my hard earned wages every dam month).
Looking at it, it's you against the majority. And the majority is very unhappy with UK's apt security. Wanna moan about it? Go to the Rant thread and leave this to us, the ones who do HAVE to deal with this issue, day in day out.

Rgds,
ATS

[Abusing_the_sky]

Someone, somewhere was saying something about aircrew being treated as pax or airside staff,there's nothing wrong with it.
I tell you what... I know for a fact that a pilot cand load bags into a plane, but can a baggage handler fly the plane?? And if a pilot would want to do some serious harm and damage, do you think he/she would use the RedBull in the crewbag or the actual thing??
I wish someone can do something about this, it's getting so frustrating that myself and fellow aviation colleagues are seriously thinking of going on strike at my base apt and take apt's security handling company to court. We do need to do something about this but the truth is (sadly) that we're all just unsalted peanuts in CAA's eyes.

RGDS,
A very sad and frustrated ATS:(

[ExSp33db1rd]

Actually, Abusing the Sky -although I totally agree with you, this behaviour is not exactly new. Years before 9/11, when security first started to stop idiots hi-jacking their Grandma to Cuba, I attempted to take my 8 yr old son on a flight out of LHR. I left him in the Immigration queue and agreed to meet him Airside, and went to the adjacent entrance. The gate goon refused to let me pass, because I had an Aircrew I.D. not a Groundcrew one and I must get a Traffic Agent to escort my son to my aircraft. I won't bore you with the rest of it, but I won - eventually !

In the same era, a colleague took his wife in the crew car via the Southside tunnel at LHR, and the goon there refused her passage because she only had a passport and a valid ticket, not a crew I.D. Maybe there is - just - some excusable logic there, as the Southside tunnel is not normally a public carriageway, but as the argument was holding up the ( then ) British Rail, Rail/Air bus from Woking, the goon suggested that she get out of the car into the bus, then once in the Central Area get off the bus and back into the car ! She did this in the interest of preventing her husband, the operating Captain, being arrested for assault, or worse. The bus passengers were not questioned of course, their only requirement was to have boarded the bus at Woking station.

I've just experienced 6 pax. boarding searches whilst flying on holiday in the USA, I'm now barely sane but slowly recovering. I've also assembled a 'security acceptable' set of travel clothing, plus belt, watch,pen, etc, that is totally metal free in all respects, and which I refuse to remove - but I haven't beaten the shoe game yet, except that whenever the weather permits I board wearing a pair of bright green "Crocs", which makes removal a little easier. I don't how you cope trying to work in this madness, I'm sure I wouldn't now.

By comparison, here in NZ I drive my car - without beacon - across the apron of my local, country, airport to my hangar, push open the doors, wheel out my microlight and go flying. Not even ATC to talk to. Sadly, as the result of a recent in-flight stabbing of a pilot I think things are going to change, but there has to be sensible, happy medium.

Nil Carborundum Illegitimum ( never let the bastards grind you down )

Best of luck.

[paarmo]

I bet you have loads of GCE's.
Fact..In all areas of industry,commerce and military all secure areas have security control. Some of which are greater than airports.All members of staff and I mean all are subject to the same controls.
Fact..if some people are exempted from these controls as has happened in the past then they are the ones at risk of family kidnapping or blackmail.
Fact..not all people even pilots act in a responsible and rational manner at all times.Stress,mental health problems and greed all play a part in peoples make up.
Get real take your shoes off assume the position and deal with it like adults.

[Abusing_the_sky]

Ahhh paarmo, lost the argument so now attack the person.
Back to the subject, it's unfair and totally unreasonable that aircrew are treated like they are in these days when going through APT security.
FULL STOP.


Rgds,
ATS

[pacplyer]

Well they finally did it. Those politicians finally managed to make the airport experience so miserable, nobody in their right mind would put up this this rudeness unless they are forced to.

But flying is still incredibly safe. If saving lives is what this is all about, let's put security back the way it was, and ban the automobile instead, since it is more dangerous by a factor of 100.

Go to the airport on my day off? :yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

Not a chance! I'll just stay home and keep the blood pressure in limits.

[call100]

Without agreeing with paarmo's concept of Pilots. The fact is that everyone working airside is in the same boat and on the same side. Pilots are human(?) and some will gripe more than others.
The whole Security screening in the UK is a joke. Any single airside worker can give examples like the axe in the cockpit. Pilots are not unique.
Unless we have a united front on this nothing will be done. The fact is it is not only a ball ache for those of us being abused by it, the economic costs of it are astronomical and impact on all business, from airport to airline and all points in between.
Instead of blasting off about the guy at the end of the chain, channel the anger into the right areas........
At the end of the month at our airport we are trying to begin a united fight via the TU movement against the regime. If successful we hope to try to get national support.
When more is known I'll let those interested know.

[paarmo]

Dear ATS First the good news. From my research it would appear that security systems at UK Airports are to undergo a complete overhaul in the next 2/3 years. Profiling will become the King.At the moment the theory is that 100 o/o of passengers and crew are subject to search procedures. This is crippling the throughput of airports and is not sustainable in the medium to long term.Systems are available to reduce this to 30o/o of passengers but are not yet robust enough to quantify as required by the CAA and the Government. However, this is changing rapidly and will I believe shortly be introduced at regional selected airports on a quiet basis.
Now the bad news. Profiling does not and cannot apply to crew and airside workers. The freeing up of security searching on passengers will therefore ,I believe , be concentrated on yourselves as being the weak link in security. No matter how many exams on opening aeroplane doors you have passed you will still be subject to close scrutiny as you pass airsde at airports. See the Facts above for the reasons.

[MPH]

Paarmo:
All very well but,.....what happened to all those deep and expensive background checks that were done when we received our airside pass´. No profiling done then? Or is it just another way of making money!!:suspect:

[qwertyplop]

What checks are those then?

Disclosure Scotland? It's only valid on the day it was issued.

Customs, Police et al are vetted to a higher level than any crew operating commercially and they are continuously monitored thereafter, they would appear to be subject to the same treatment as the rest of you from what I can see. Only if they are carrying a weapon or are on a job are they allowed to proceed without being bothered and that's because private security cannot legally touch/handle the aforementioned weapon not should they interfere in ongoing law enforcement work.

As I understand it.

So wittering on about having background checks is meaningless frankly, the issue is the stupidity of those who came up with these ideas in spite of all the points made here and the overwhelming evidence that vetting is not actually the issue.

[blimey]

paarmo

Fact..if some people are exempted from these controls as has happened in the past then they are the ones at risk of family kidnapping or blackmail.

So how come the police don't have a problem taking weapons airside. They would have less opportunity to alert the authorities to a problem than crew.

And lets face it, if the same regulations aren't applied at both ends of the flight, which they're not, then the whole process is a farce.


qwertyplop

Police et al are vetted to a higher level than any crew operating commercially and they are continuously monitored thereafter
And this ensures that there are no bad eggs in the police force :bored:

[MPH]

qwertyplop:
The background checks are valid on the day of disclousure! Well you just discovered America!!! Or did we think that was an on going process?..That would really cost a fortune. The checks on your background is to see if you have any criminal records up and untill that date. Your profile is keept and you are updated through the your company, with the local authorities in charge of your airside pass. The other pass you should have is your company pass.
The process we are talking about here is the constant and absurd items included in these checks. No water..after shave..nail cutters etc. Taking of your belt off, shoes, etc. Whow, what a headline that would be, airline crew tried to sneak on board a 100mls of shampoo´! Let´s look into the order of preferences in this matter.
The idea behind security checks is to prevent any dangereuos goods or items getting on board an aircraft that might in some way benefit an person or persons in physicaly taking over control of an aircraft. The persons whom are actually in charge of taking the same aircraft from A to B are that same crew, whom are being checked! Where is the logic in taking away a bottle of water for for example. Are crew under suspicion and maybe suspected in acting in a hostile manner once on board? Thats like saying a fireman goes to the scene of a fire and actually throws a match into the blaze. Random checks for aircrew yes, but, everytime, everyday every hour, no!!

[Mick Stability]

The checks from CRB Scotland are the thinnest veneer of an excuse to bring jobs to marginal Labour constituencies north of the border. They're not worth the paper they're written on, and they're not applied to foreign nationals. Mr Bed Linen could get a job in Smiths at Heathrabad and never have his card marked.

The whole shambles that is 'security' in the UK's airports is merely intended as a fig leaf to cover the embarrassment of a clueless and maladroit administration that seeks a good headline in The Mirror between 'Phew, what a scorcher!' and 'Victoria Beckham buys a hat'.

[A and C]

By and large it is security managenent that needs to "grow up" as you put it, the whole system needs to be standardised so that crews know what they can and can't take on to an aircraft.
90% of the friction with security staff would be avoided IF the UK had a common set of rules applyed in a uniform fashon.

What we have at the moment of a common set of rules from the DfT to which are added "local rules" at the discression of the airfield manager, the result is that crews turn up at the security check point at an away from base airport to find that an item they have in is "banned" at this airport but would have been allowed at countless others.

I have had misdeeds inflicted apon me at a number of UK airports but all of these are the result of the individual over stepping the mark (a game of captain discrimination to show off the little power they have). Unfortunatly we wil never weed out these individuals as long as the industry pays low wages and atracts the lower end of the workforce.

Untill the standardisation problem is resolved conflict will continue at a high rate and crews will regard "security" as the enemy, only when this has been done can we get on with locating and removing the few truly bad security staff (as the conflict rate falls it would become more clear who the trouble makers are), the obstical to ths is the airfield managements who won' give up the "local rules" that they hold so dear.

It is my opnion that the Transport Minister should "inbedded" in an airline crew for a week or so maybe then this farce that is called security would change for the better.

[qwertyplop]

paarmo

Quote:
Fact..if some people are exempted from these controls as has happened in the past then they are the ones at risk of family kidnapping or blackmail.
So how come the police don't have a problem taking weapons airside. They would have less opportunity to alert the authorities to a problem than crew.

And lets face it, if the same regulations aren't applied at both ends of the flight, which they're not, then the whole process is a farce.


qwertyplop

Quote:
Police et al are vetted to a higher level than any crew operating commercially and they are continuously monitored thereafter
And this ensures that there are no bad eggs in the police force :bored:


Of course not - but I presume there are acceptable levels of risk to take and that the risk is mitigated by the somewhat more stringent and ongoing vetting practices that they are subject to which equate to more than the rest of us? The police still need to police the airside part of the port and Police are required to carry a variety of weapons to discharge that function.

Do I agree with the way the current regime works?

No - but you can't do without the port control authorities either can you in an airport? No police/customs/immigration - no port. Thus far - services do not appear to have been affected by someone getting hump because they can't take a bottle of perfume on board because they are crew. If you get the hump, file the CHIRP reports and make a fuss. Is everyone doing that? No.

The problem here is that certain parts of the airside fraternity have taken it upon themselves to think they are more hard done by than others - the sooner we all stick together..........:ugh:

For what it worth guys - totally support any move to remove this level of responsibility and choice of victim from the lowest paid and least skilled persons working in the airside environment.

Sorry Security - that's how you make us feel. :D

[sawadecup]

we even have an AXE onborard..... what's the point of taking my Swiss made knife away....:hmm:

[paarmo]

When you had your background checks to gain employment and your airside passes these were exactly that , background checks. Profiling is totally different and confines itself to the moment in time in which you are carrying out an action, in this case attempting to board an aircraft.
With aircrew this is impossible because there are very few profiling points or suspicious variables which can be checked or grouped together to throw up suspicion.
I do not want to go into these points or variables here in public but I think that you can guess at some of them.
Aircrew throw the whole system to hell and so they cannot be factored into profiling.
If you want to be exempt from searches at security points then you need to take part in a system called positive vetting which is highly intrusive into your personal life and is also very expensive. If you have any secrets no matter how small or mundane in your life you do not want to go down the positive vetting route because it can be a marriage , friendship and career breaker. Best put up with taking your shoes off and spreading.

[rigpiggy]

Can't get quote function to work.

Qwertypoop,

if police/customs are so highly vetted how come in the last month 2 ontario police were arrested for growops, and 2 customs agents for drug importation. And authorities are talking about year long investigations, how long were these outstanding upright bastions of society involved in their enterprises.

[qwertyplop]

Can't get quote function to work.

Qwertypoop,

if police/customs are so highly vetted how come in the last month 2 ontario police were arrested for growops, and 2 customs agents for drug importation. And authorities are talking about year long investigations, how long were these outstanding upright bastions of society involved in their enterprises.

I think this proves that a combination of ongoing vetting and ongoing monitoring works. You set a thief to catch a thief after all.

I also imagine this was the most exciting thing to happen in Canada for some years. :)

You'll draw your own conclusions though.

[Romeo India Xray]

I am now convinced you are neither aircrew/an airside worker, nor that you have any appreciation of what this involves. Your ignorance is on par with that of politicians or wannabe jounalists.

I am not willing to divulge the nature of the medication that was STOLEN from an FO friend of mine at LGW, but suffice to say it was necessarilly prescribed but perfectly permissible to fly whilst taking it.

It would seem from your writing that you at least have a modicum of intelligence, so how is it that you find it so difficult to appreciate the huge contradiction here!

Aircrew could do ALL the damage they want much more easilly than reverting to liquid explosives/concealing small weapons etc. The UK seems to be the only state in the EU (in my experience), implementing this crass lunacy. This same lunacy is delaying crews, adding stress at a time when your job is already at its most stressful and in extremis is resulting in the THEFT of medical supplies - that is ENDANGERING aircraft. This is idiocy at levels I previously thought impossible.

RIX

[paarmo]

Yes aircrew can do all the damage that they want and endanger aircraft which is precisely why they should be monitored more closely than anyone else.

[Oxidant]

Where is that "ignore" button?

[Romeo India Xray]

I agree that background/psychological testing is paramount. Being PIC of an aircraft with 300+ PAX on board coupled with however many on the ground that you wish to aim at is something not suitable for all types and temprements.

Now tell me exactly how confiscating a 20ml bottle of prescribed medicine helps to weed out these types of individual. And for that matter how any of the other security "screened" items help to stop this. The answer is NIL! We already have all the weapon we want or need, at our disposal.

The fact is that being a pilot is not something your average 16yo indoctrinated school leaver is capable of. It takes money, time and total dedication to get your hands on one of these aircraft.

I am aware that there is a slim possibility of an existing pilot becoming indoctrinated or "turning bad", but tell me how taking his/her medicine away is going to stop him using the 200 tonne weapon he is about to go and fly? Same goes for his bottle of water/swiss army knife.

The analogy is something like taking a plastic knife off a child, then putting him into a sawmill to go play. The difference is that these children have shown total dedication to get into the sawmill and work hard every day to ensure that no one gets cut. No Paarmo you are telling them that they are welcome to wield their big saws, but you will steal their plastic knifes because they are dangerous. Can you kindly explain the logic.

Also Paarmo, do you care to enlighten us as to your profession/interest in this issue?

[brakedwell]

Yes aircrew can do all the damage that they want and endanger aircraft which is precisely why they should be monitored more closely than anyone else.


OK paarmo, then ban all aircrew from flightdecks and you can do away with security. Problem solved. :ugh::ugh:

[Abusing_the_sky]

Paarmo.... you still don't understand, with all your elbow wisdom, that the majority of posters here on this thread are indeed aircrew, unlike you, and we have reached a point where we are just fed up with the security nonsense in the UK. Yes by all means monitor the crew, but like someone else said, not every bloody day, every bloody hour! As from liquid testing and medication confiscated, why not do that everywhere? Say a huge office building; now if i wanted to do some damage, i would go in, place a bomb, come out and detonate it. Damage done and no one would ask me a question at "security".
Don't you think that a pilot, after beeing annoyed and stressed by the failed policemen at security could jump in the a/c and fly it straight into let's say a busy shopping centre or the highest building in sight?
It's a question of common sense Paarmo. Something that security staff, sadly, are not being trained to have.
How many days of training a security staff has? 2? How much training does a pilot have? YEARS!
Until you go through staff security channel in all major UK airports and experience for yourself what we have to put up with day in day out, please don't argue with us.
Indeed, where is that "ignore" button?

I rest my case.
Rgds,
ATS

[Mick Stability]

there is a slim possibility of an existing pilot becoming indoctrinated or "turning bad"

We could go a long way with that argument. What if a bloke who everyone though was alright somehow became Prime Minister and ruined a perfectly good country?

Maybe we should confiscate his shampoo?

[Romeo India Xray]

Mick - I only put that line in to stop paarmo coming back with the counter argument about "what if". As for the dictator that got in through the back door - dont get me started ..... I think it was his brain that the security idiots confiscated. He certainly came in after a few hours of gazing into a rose tinted crystal ball - but then again it is his bunch of merry goons that are putting all you UK based crews through hell - Little does he know that the travelling public also hate this hell, and he is doing nothing but facilitating the ballot papers to slip to the other parties.

[Xeque]

Guys, my sympathies are with you all. Personally as a pax, I have made my decision. On any future visits to the UK I will be coming through Schiphol and taking the train into London. As it turns out it is actually cheaper (train fare plus my preferred airline) but about 3 hours longer. So what? I will not be humiliated on the outward journey by a bunch of (otherwise) unemployable drongo's exercising their 'powers' over others who are way above them in the evolution chain.
Here's an idea. Why not use this forum to organise a day of united protest. Arrive for your flights as usual and do all the stuff you need to do to fly the route so that you do not compromise your terms of employment. Then, when you arrive at 'security', just say "NO" - just as we advocate with kids and drugs. Just refuse to comply with their stupid, insane, insensible, unacceptable and personally abusive actions.
How quickly do you think that such a protest will result in the airport being brought to a standstill?
And broadcast what you are doing. Make sure that the 'stranded' passengers also understand what is going on. I bet you that you will get an overwhelming majority of support from them no matter how badly the conditions deteriorate in the terminal buildings.
Take it from me - we passengers are just as fed up to the back teeth with it all as you are.
And I still want an answer to a previously asked question. What happens to all the factory sealed bottles and packages of items 'stolen' from us? Straight round the corner and into the outlets in the departure lounge or on the shelves of the local 'open all hours' the next day? You decide.

[rsuggitt]

"Yes by all means monitor the crew, but like someone else said, not every bloody day, every bloody hour! "

Yes, every day, every hour.

I do understand the frustration, but you are all thinking like pilots, not like terrorists. Its exactly because you are the most powerful, authoritative people that makes it most necessary to make the most detailled checks. If terrorists discovered that pilots were often avoiding security checks, they would try to either subvert you or pressure you into doing something dangerous.
For example, en route to the airport you get a hysterical call from your wife saying that gunmen have broken in and are threatening to kill your family unless you use the cover of your uniform to carry a package that someone will give you airside. The only way to make air travel safe, and to make you safe, is for security to be especially careful.

[Xeque]

Oh please!! You sound like a bad script for a 'B' movie.

[GearDown&Locked]

Indeed :)
Don't you guys have some number to dial if something like that happens? :}

Next scene: SAS storms pilot's house, pilot is monitored by undercover anti-terrorist police, bad guy on the airside is 'popped' on sight while trying to pass some dangerous stuff... etc

:D

[seafire6b]

Pilots exempt from security screening? Think this requires some 'thinking through' of the required mechanism for those policing it - the devil's gonna be in the detail!

Assume we're talking about about exempting uniformed pilots imminently operating from a UK airport. What about those similarly uniformed, but deadheading to another (UK or outwith) point, either on a jumpseat or in the pax cabin? Or postioning on a "third party" carrier? Or just returning home after completion of a trip? In uniform or not? And how is the security screener meant to actually verify which pilot's doing what?

Further, would such pilot-exemption apply to only ATPL's/CPL's etc also being UK passport holders? Or perhaps all EC passport holders, or maybe just anyone of any nationality -providing that they hold a valid passport, CPL and of course - an airline I.D. with the word "Pilot" printed upon it?!!

Personally, I cannot wait to see some example wording for this "Pilots Security Exempt" ruling - but I'd definitely leave it for someone else to explain the practicalities of its execution to the security "goons"!

How is the security "goon" meant to distinguish between bona-fide pilots on duty and others just abusing the system? And some will abuse it.

To be effective, security "goons" must have clear instructions, specifying their actual tasks.
"Screen everyone going airside, plus their belongings" seems pretty clear to me.
Once we start introducing "unless" and "excepts" and "howevers", the security staff are bound to become less sure of their ground, with the possibility of them being verbally bullied (pilots are much more positive and articulate than goons!) into making a decision they might be less than 100% happy about.

The next obnoxious bully could just have plans other than simply avoiding the tiresome security goon. And who'd be first to complain to PPrune then?

[MPH]

seafire6b:
Nobody is saying éxempt´We are talking about the absurd manner in which these checks are carried out: i.e ,no water, liquids take your belt off, shoes, what´s that in your back pocket, etc!! Customs do random checks on in- coming and at some places even going-out paxs!!! And, we are in fact talking about the crews whom are in charge and are responisble for the safe operation of the aircraft. The same ones whom are trained in ´dangerous goods´handeling, whom have gone throught hijack scenarios, whom have seen films on profiles and operations on what can, motivate and what can happen in a terrorist situation. The same ones whom are trained in emergency situations, in the use of saftey and emergency equipment O/B ( the axe included). If, the same crew member goes through with or without liguid, nail cutter or a swiss knife. I cannot see what diference it would make if, that individual had in his mind to do something anyway!! We have to believe that the doctor will try and save a life, that the fireman will put out a fire and that the policeman will do his job? The crew go through enough training are, sufficiently profiled and are in general well known individuals to the airlines where they work. Do not assume and put crew and pax´s in the same scenario!

[seafire6b]

MPH:

Agreed, if the problem is merely one of application. Similarly to the police and traffic wardens etc, some of those appointed "to look after our interests and/or protect us", are undoubtedly over-zealous and sometimes lack basic common sense whilst executing their duties. That is not to say the system in itself is flawed.

The point remains that one day at a busy airport, the lone pilot trying to hurry through security, supposedly in order to catch up with his fellow-crew members, could in fact be "The Fake Pilot", intent on taking a device (or parts thereof?) aboard himself as a passenger, or passing it to a comrade once airside. I'd like to think that he would HAVE to comply with a request (or even a rude-ish demand!) to remove his shoes (refer the very first post on this thread!), or to drink some of the innocent-looking liquid medicine in his bag, etc, etc.

As we all know, commercial aviation is a high profile target for propaganda purposes. It's fact of life that terrorism is increasingly sophisticated and long-term sleepers are bound to be "the way forward". Agreed, it's not the career pilots who are the risk. But whilst we'll never achieve 100% security, we must obviously do all possible to close loopholes before they're open; that might scratch at some sensitivities.

Incidentally, the lengthy hi-jack that I experienced at first hand was by no means a "scenario"!

[paarmo]

I am sorry that I have annoyed you by presenting an argument which is counter to your strongly held beliefs. I was ,however, lead to believe that this was a public forum for sensible debate. The whole purpose of debate is to put one's point of view and defend it as strongly as you feel.
I apologise for presenting a point of view which is counter to your's but which is supported by facts and not hysteria at having to be subject to a search once a day.
If you do not wish someone to put a counter point of view then perhaps it would be best if you wrote your thoughts into your diary rather than publish them in public and allow them to be tested.
Rix.. Perhaps you could tell people why your friend's medication was taken from him. Could it be perhaps that it was not authenticated as a medicine as required by CAA rules. Being a Pilot I would have thought that you would be intelligent enough to read and understand what the CAA require and comply with it. After all Pilots follow all safety rules to the letter at all times.

[paarmo]

Why do you think that of all the conquering armies through history from Eygptians through Spartans,Romans Mongols Franks through to the English in the 14/15th century have never had any reliance on the axe as an offensive weapon?
Because it is useless as an offensive weapon. It is difficult to use ,cumbersome and leaves the user open to counter attack before he can get his first blow in. In an aircraft cabin it would be worse than useless it would be a liability.
A Swiss army knife with a 3" blade is a much more lethal option as it is easy to use , quick and can be used with equal effect on any part of the body with maximum chance of success.
Which is why in their wisdom the CAA have banned Swiss army knives and not the emergency axe. Someone with some common sense and practical knowledge must have given them advice I think

[ShyTorque]

I was detained at the maintenance drive-in gate (normal way in for us), because my freelance copilot for the day didn't have his passport. He didn't need it, we were remaining in the country, although he had his licence and photo ID. Same security guy had let me and many other pilots through this gate for about three years with no problems before. The argument escalated until I said that they had won, I'd changed my mind, I no longer wanted to go through the gate, and went back to my car. This caused huge consternation with the security people. They asked where I was going. I said I was going around the other route, where there were no security checks. I said I would park up my car elsewhere, and was going to use my electronic key to another pedestrian gate. They immediately changed their minds and let us through! Never did understand the logic of this one. Mind you, this was the same lot who suddenly demanded exhaust emissions tests and certificates for our private cars before we drove them 100 metres airside into our company car park! Strange thing was, they didn't have any idea what the pass/fail limits were... :hmm:

[el #]

Paarmo, are you for real?

I think you're a smartass laughing at all the corteous Pilots trying to get you reasoning. May be you envy them for some reason ?

Is there a need for security check to Air Crew ?
Certainly there is.

It has to be by the same rules as for pax?
Certainly not.

Doesn't take much to understand that, now the only problem is that the Gov.nt did not.

They just choose the cheapest way of having a single system and set of rules, after all it's just for the eye of the public.

[atcomarkingtime]

Heard a great one today....that was after I had done security to get into work and played guessing games with security about what was in my "lunch box"....yes my soup was frozen so it could go airside!!! I made it a liquid later!!
One of our chaps had to go to another airport...he turned up...with his company pass....that wasn't valid at this "same company" airfield...so he showed his passport and driving license...they sent him the 250miles back home as they couldn't accept his passport and driving license as I/D as he had same company airfield I/D...and couldn't accept his I/D as it wasn't valid at this airfield.......:ugh:

[Rananim]

Unfortunately,the only answer would be some sort of industrial action as already suggested.Petitions will only meet brick walls.Pilots are notoriously divided as a group;indeed there is often intra-airline resentment and open hostility.WE have it in the States just as you surely do in the UK ie.BA vs the untouchables.And thats the problem.Thats why the brave new PC world has you by the balls and why O'Leary is able to charge you for the pleasure of flying his planes and why you have to drop your pants every time you go airside.I know in the old days(say if 911 had happened in the 60's),none of this would have been tolerated for longer than the time it takes for a duck to break wind.But,of course in the old days pilots werent emasculated PC-stooges.Most were ex-military,extremely difficult SOB's,your worst CRM nightmare,who just wouldnt put up with this kind of bs.

Crews need to be searched but that search must always be conducted in a dedicated crew channel and it must never be unduly invasive.These are professionals trying to get to their place of work.If they cant achieve that goal,the passengers dont fly,the airlines grind to a halt and the security folks will have to look for work at Burgerking come Monday morning.So we must all be sensible about this.

For crews listed on a manifest(issued by the airline confidentially to the TSA or equivalent)the check should be twofold:
a)ID-either by traditional means(ID pass) or biometric scan;and the security personnel conducting this check must be highly competent,their best players if you like.
b)Traditional airport walkthrough scanner check along with bag check.(absolutely no body scanners for crew members..)

If the check in(a) was biometric,then the check in(b) should be relaxed in line with good common sense(flight crew are a very low threat group duh...)use profiling!!!
At any rate,there must be no requests for removal of shoes or belts etc(imagine asking a skipper whos about to fly 300 people across the seas to remove his shoes...what kind of power trip are these guys on?) ,no confiscation of trivial sharp objects(nail-clippers),no confiscation of liquids that the flight crew member says he/she needs or desires to perform his duties(medication?contact lens cleaner /water etc),and above all no attempt to humiliate or demean the crew member.In return,flight crew members must offer their full cooperation.

We work at the same place and we must learn to get along and fight the real enemy.

You can huff and you can puff but if you dont take action to take back your airplane,your job and your pride,then this once-great profession will disappear down the toilet pretty damn quickly.

[Xeque]

Rananim

Well said!!

[Ladusvala]

Paarmo, do you really believe that a terrorist will pressure a pilot to smuggle a swiss army knife for them? Besides, you can steal knifes in the restaurant kitchens inside the security zone, or why not pressure a cock in said restaurant to give them a knife?
It´s not unthinkable that terrorists will pressure a pilot to smuggle a pistol or a bomb (not liquid, they can bring that in themselves, deciliter by deciliter) so then search pilots for bombs, pistols and such, not nailclippers, multi tools, water, etc.

And Paarmo, what about the wine bottles aboard aircraft? The bottles are made of glas and a terrorist can easily take one, brake it and have a leathal weapon.

Anyone else heard of the egyptian captain who killed a hijacker with a fire axe?

[S78]

Paarmo, you really are a muppet.

How is a pilot sitting at the controls going to get his counter attack in first if I decide to take the axe to the back of his head or the controls? If you think aircrew are a risk and have to be screened then you must realise that they are just as big a risk using the axe or even THE AIRCRAFT ITSELF:eek:. Does this help put the security jobsworth who confiscates the bottle of Ribena into perspective?


Having studied ancient history I'm pretty sure that when the Romans et al were taking each other on they were armed with something a bit bigger than a swiss army knife and tended to be facing each other during the fight:ugh:




S78

[qwertyplop]

S78 is correct - perspective is everything here.

What are security checking when they check your passport/paperwork then?

That it's you?

How does that work?

They are not given forgery training or rudimentary training on basic credibility based questioning techniques in order to trip up the person carrying documentation they should not have. They are just barrier technicians with respect to them.

More farce.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if they were vetted properly to SC/DV level, I suspect a few would not be at work the following Monday or, rather, the 6 months after the vetting was done because that's how long it takes to get a result. :eek:

I might have a bit more faith in the system then because I would know they were cleared to read up on what the 'threat' really is and how they have a part in countering it.

Cost I guess would mitigate against this.

[Romeo India Xray]

I find it interesting that you have been unable to present a relevant counter-argument to the presentations made by active air-crew. You have failed to tell us your interest in this subject and failed to develop your own argument, except for driving the same statements round in circles.

My friend's medication was (and continues to be) prescribed in full knowledge of his AME, and will continue to be for the remainder of his career. It comes in a 20ml bottle, complete with medical labeling stating his name and address.

Several posts ago I put it to you to justify such preposterous security measures in the face of aircrew having airside access to all the lethal weapons that a radical could imagine in his wildest dreams. You have failed to substantiate your own arguments in the face of this.

Would you kindly tell us exactly what security you propose in your own idealistic utopian world? And will you then be so kind as to respond to being challenged, in order to see if your utopia really does hold water.

[rsuggitt]

So did 9/11 and 7/7

[MPH]

I think what´s happening is, that they (security) want a free ride and, are trying to get into the flight deck just to see if, we do our job and, that we are not a liability to the aircraft?!!! In fact the whole problem with this security topic are the crew and their nail clippers!!! Swiss knife more leathal than a grade 3 axe, please, give me a break!!!:uhoh:

[paarmo]

I have read with some disbelief the pages on this forum. We have pilots who cannot seemingly be bothered to check what documentation is required to transit security at new airports. A pilot who had a so called medicine confiscated because either he couldn't be bothered or couldn't understand the rules on medicines and security checkpoints. A pilot who circumvents security by freezing liquid before taking it through security and one who takes the huff and presents security with that poxy axe and declares that the aeroplane cannot fly without an axe on board( God help us ). We then have other cabin staff who claim that they are about to put used tampons and urine in their carry on bags for security to find and handle.
The general tenor of these postings is that you view security staff as something which you have to scrape off your shoe. If that is the way you appear to security staff is it any wonder that they single you out and make life as difficult as possible for you.They are only human after all.
Remember the story of the journalist in the late 1960's who was at Cape Canaveral. He went to the toilet and found a man in there with a mop and bucket. "Hello what are you doing?" he said. The reply came " I am helping to put a man on the moon"
You would do well to remember that the next time you denigrate someone who you assume is less intelligent , less motivated and less well paid than yourselves.

[The Real Slim Shady]

Pilots tend to be cogent, considered, eloquent, measured and fairly passionate about their chosen professions. One does not grace the front seats of a modern jet airliner without a considerable degree of resolve, patience and determination.

Equally pilots tend to to be fairly moderate in their views until they, as a group, witness procedures or events which are manifestly unjust or simply downright stupid: we don't suffer fools gladly.

Day to day security for crew has become a farce: we are all rigorously examined prior to the issue of an airside pass and hold licences issued by the Authority often years / decades ago. Many of us are ex- military and held security clearances which allowed us access to all manner of military establishments within NATO.

We control large flying bombs but some YTS, 2 day trained, off the street acned youth can demand that we remove shoes, clothing and empty our flightbags just in case we may have been compromised by some terrorist. We have our drinks confiscated, yoghurts binned and after shaves recycled.

We see crates of water bottles being taken through for sale airside: trucks allowed airside to deliver equipment and the ubiquitous DB9 set up in the departure lounge to encourage sales of raffle tickets. No doubt every bottle has been drop tested, and the DB9 has been stripped down and checked panel by panel, the trucks are taken apart and re-assembled.

The issue is consistency: if aircrew are going to be subjected to scrutiny then you have to be equitable: do the armed police, the trucks coming through, check every bottle of water,canned drink. Ban alcohol as it is flammable, ban matches and lighters from duty free, hairspray, perfume etc etc

Until that becomes the norm aircrew are being discriminated against, like it or not.

[Romeo India Xray]

Ladusvala, it is not worth your time reiterating your questions to such types as paarmo - here we have an individual who has a water-tight argument in the face of compelling evidence against.

The theory is simple - if you cant rebut an argument then simply ignore it and continue to iterate that your own evidently flawed proclamations are incontrovertibly and undeniably correct.

It is evident to all FLIGHT DECK CREW (is this not a FLIGHT DECK forum?), that Paarmo has ZERO relevant experience and seems equally incapable of providing any reason (e.g. occupation/background) as to his authority to comment on this subject.

On a side note though, it is very entertaining to watch someone with an undeniably weak argument and knowledge base, squirm and fail in the light of those who are in the know.

RIX

[Jess1968]

Before I start this post I will state I do not work for any security firm, any airline or any airport authority...however I do work airside, have a full all zone pass and pass through the security channel 5/6 up to 10 times a day.

Therefore I can be searched or not depending on if the alarm goes off, If I wasn't searched i could bring anything through to departures...out onto the apron and potentially onto the aircraft if I was a terrorist or someone just with a grudge.

I believe (although sometimes they are an irritant) security do a thankless but exceptionally important job and they are after all just following instructions set down (rightly or wrongly) by the government and also world security regulations.

If you treat people everywhere how you would like you and your family to be treated you get much further than being arrogant and rude (yes I have seen how some air crew treat people who don't work for an airline....and you should be ashamed!!)

Suck it up...don't bring products you KNOW are banned, don't get all shirty when you are asked to remove shoes/belts etc, just smile and get on with it for goodness sake...isn't life too short to get so wound up about things that can be ignored so easily.

Happy travelling :)

[GearDown&Locked]

I remember in the mid-eighties well before this 9/11 security hysteria, there were trained professional Airport Police with steely eyes better than your best x-ray machine or metal detector; If something looked suspicious they would put you through the same type of examining that everyone without exception has to face nowadays, but it was a rare occasion all in all. I believe those guys had a lot of training and were backed with years of experience, and that surely costs money.
In the age of fast food, you also have fast security: cheap half-baked employee ready to be used (and discarded) at will. Airport Authorities are like “I’ll have a dozen of those and… a couple of that ones too” “would you like coriander sauce with your order sir?”:hmm:

This is completely irrational… are people stripped searched before boarding a train, a bus or the tube? Yet everyone still take the risk of travelling on them, day in day out. This logic is inverted as it would make all the sense if it was the actual Capt of a flight to demand that his PAX are screened for safety reasons, not the other way around. :=

GD&L

[S78]

Jess,

I've tried being nice to security -as have my colleagues - it doesn't work.

if you try to talk to them all you get is a grunt. Give them all hoodies and they wouldn't look out of place on street corners - which is probably where they would rather be, instead of doing a job which they only took because the DSS were going to cut their benefits:{



S78

[rubik101]

When the suicide attacker dressed as a policeman enters Terminal 5, lots of open space and clear lines of fire, he will let rip with his automatic, rapid fire machine gun and kill 50 or more people. This will be considered a result by the mad Mullahs and K'uran waving fanatics. (peace to all true Muslims)
The aircrew who have had to remove their shoes and belts will then be subjected to even more stringent checks, to make sure it never happens again.

Logical schmogical Home Office farcical.

The present system of aircrew screening is a complete farce, wasting space, wasting money, wasting time. All led by Ministerial and Home Office idiots who are more fond of fruitless posturing, political infighting and the preservation of their inane and boring jobs.

As a result, we all lose out and people will continue to die.

I can't bring my car to the terminal to drop off my family but a terrorist in a taxi has unlimited access to the space in front of the building.

Delivery trucks are airside by the thousand every day, all of them thoroughly searched of course.

Just where do they think the threat is coming from?

Go figure.

[paarmo]

I see everyone against my point of view is studiously ignoring the lack of professionalism of some of the contributors to this forum.
You do seem full of spurious scenarios though.
Please face facts. The CAA regulations are there to be followed at the moment and whether anyone likes it or not they are all subject to them when you access a secure area of the airport.If they change in the future then so be it but please do not try and tell me that showing correct paperwok and being searched once a day is causing you all to have mental breakdowns.
Although some of you may be special and very professional you cannot vouch for everyone who is a member of aircrew. Remember the regulations are there to protect all people regardless of their views even me.

[Stoic]

For what it's worth, here is a letter dated 12/5/08 to the New Zealand Herald which appears in today's Private Eye:

Sir, My brother-in-law went through security at Auckland domestic airport, and witnessed a passenger having to fish out her nail scissors from her handbag and leave them behind. He passed through security, then boarded his plane.
After being seated he realised that he could smell petrol. He knew that he shouldn’t be able to smell petrol on a plane, because planes don’t use petrol. The smell got worse, and eventually he attracted the attention of one of the flight attendants, who started to look around to see where it was coming from. After a short search of the overhead compartments, the attendant found a chainsaw in a bag that was leaking petrol into the compartment.
The plane was delayed while the owner was identified, and the chainsaw was removed and put with the main luggage. The owner of the chainsaw said security had stopped him and asked him about it, but had let it through because it wasn’t one of the things on their list to confiscate.
S

[paarmo]

Good research S78.
After consultation with the Management in a constructive and reasonable manner the system you will now find is much better.
It's no good throwing tantrums every time something is not as you wish. Learn who to approach and then do so in a reasonable and constructive manner and you will be amazed by the results. Do not be put off by rejection of your arguments and persevere rather than flying into a rage because someone does not immediately see your point of view.
Shame really because I thought that pilots would have had the tenacity of purpose to follow something through rather than throwing in the towel and lashing out at all and sundry.
After all this is a debating forum and if both sides of an argument are not put forward it becomes a back slapping exercise which nobody wants to read or take part in.
Ah well back to the garden!!!!

[Xeque]

I should have targeted paarmo as well as rsuggitt in my last post. paarmo is obviously 'one of them' too whilst I still maintain that rsuggitt is 'one of them' also despite his stout denials.
Ah well, remember what I said guys - a simple day of protest. That's all it takes to draw full attention to this curse and bring things to a head.
Go for it.
I hope you can take the time to read this:
Mass murder in the skies: was the plot feasible? | The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/)
It's an interesting take on the current situation albeit a couple of years old. Who's kidding who do you think?

RIX: do you really think paarmo is a poli? If so, his input to this forum would fit the profile :)

[Romeo India Xray]

Thanks, an informative article! I hope Paarmo takes the time to read that write-up - Interesting indeed! I also hope he takes the time to answer ANY of my questions. I dont hold much hope of either happening.

[rsuggitt]

"I still maintain that rsuggitt is 'one of them' also despite his stout denials."

You're still wrong, sunbeam.

I'm just a member of the travelling public. One who wants to stay safe. One who would like the pilot of his plane to be cool, calm and professional. These are things that are significantly lacking from many posts on this thread.

While it has been pointed out that this section of the forum is for airline staff only, let me point out to you that it is not presently restricted or secured, so the entire internet world can read it. Some of you are not doing yourselves any favours by what you say here.

[ShyTorque]

I think the point has been missed by at least one poster here. Recent editions of CHIRP magazine have shown that security staff imposed aircrew stress is a real day to day flight safety issue, not just something dreamed up by the over-emotional.

The real next threat will not come through a security gate. That's old hat, out of date. The security service is behind the drag curve. The present security procedures are borne out of an almost hysterical government response caused by media sensationalism.

Anyone working airside could pick fault in security procedures, see loopholes.

For example, "Restricted Area 157" over London was put in place after 9/11 and it remains to this day. It serves no practical purpose whatsoever and in some circumstances causes a flight safety hazard. It appears to be there only so that politicians and senior police "experts" can say that something was done.

I fly an aircraft that could easily cause untold damage, despite this shallow, nugatory veneer of security we suffer at the behest of the ignorant. Getting me to remove my belt and shoes so a bell doesn't ding changes nothing.

[S78]

Going through a security check with one of my colleagues yesterday brought us into contact with one of the overzealous twerps that this thread was inspired by.


Having spotted a 'can' on the x-ray he challenges my colleague who produces the offending item from her bag. Security twerp ignores the can and insists on going through her bag - when we queried this he justified his actions by stating that 'we've had a memo' which says they should do this:ugh:

What is really annoying me - and I suspect many others - is the complete lack of common sense employed by security.



S78

[rmac]

S78

The reason that there is a lack of common dog in security at airports is that the tender is often awarded to the cheapest bidder and that low price generally only allows for the recruitment of the uninspired, the desperate and the plain stupid....:ugh:

[42psi]

As I tread warily into this .......


Are there not two seperate issues at play here?


1. The occasional behaviour (surly, ill mannered etc) of security staff

and

2. The daft rules about what can/cannot be allowed through, how many people/bags etc must be hand searched.



The first surely should be complained about to t he airport/security managers.

The second has nothing to do with them but is is a transec issue??




It's been my understanding for some time that in the UK at least the security search points are monitered by camera which records the processes.

These recordings are then used together with "test subjects" to check that the security staff actually do remove the items listed and search the right number of shoes/bags/nether regions in the manner to which they become accustomed (sorry .. trained).

If that's true then I can see why they are reluctant not to follow the daft rules and maybe put their own livelyhood at risk??




As for the daftness .. not that long ago I had cause to take through in the course of my work some items that would normally create mayhem and alarm if ever picked up at a passenger search area.

As I was in a vehicle I explained what I had and asked if they wanted me to carry said items into the search area or leave them in the vehicle .... thinking that it would probably require me calling the Airfield Duty Mgr/Security Mgr to sort it all out if I ended up having to actually carry them through.

I was surprised and relieved when I was told "it's OK, leave them in the vehicle" .... walked halfway to the search area when I was called back to the vehicle.

Me, thinking "he's had second thoughts, here we go" ... I stroll back ..... and am handed the mobile 'phone I'd left behind so I can take it through the search area.



The rules are daft but the rule makers are dafter !!

[IcePack]

Interesting conversation with a major airports security:

Good afternoon I'm afraid you can not go through (to airside) with that airport's pass.
Ok we'll just go back to the Hotel bye
There is no need to be like that!
No its OK we'll just go back to the hotel untill it's sorted out
There's no need to be like that. I'll call my supervisor.
After supervisor arrives
Ok I'll allow you through this time
So next week we will not be allowed through?
No
Ok we'll just go back to the hotel then next week
There is no need to be like THAT!

-------------

Methinks some security types just want to wind crew up. and when their bluff is called and it is THIER neck on the line they can only hope that by being obtuse they can get out of it by saying the crew were being obstructive.

[Xeque]

The first is positively Orwellian – in fact it’s very scary because it implies that, as far as American Homeland Security is concerned, this airport lunacy is here to stay.
And what’s the story with the presenter with the British accent? Is that supposed to signify British acceptance of the status quo?

Threat Level - Wired Blogs (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/threats/index.html)

The second clip reinforces what rmac said in an earlier post as well as all the other instances that have been recorded in this forum. If the cheapest bidder always wins then the ‘winning’ contractor is severely restricted in what he is able to pay his ‘operatives’. You get what you pay for and to hope to recruit security operatives with enough intelligence or common sense to apply logic or reason to any given situation no matter how obvious the answer may be is to whistle into the wind. (for ‘whistle’ substitute any other words you see fit)

ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4986606)

[jetset lady]

After consultation with the Management in a constructive and reasonable manner the system you will now find is much better.
It's no good throwing tantrums every time something is not as you wish. Learn who to approach and then do so in a reasonable and constructive manner and you will be amazed by the results. Do not be put off by rejection of your arguments and persevere rather than flying into a rage because someone does not immediately see your point of view.

We tried that paarmo. In our case, it was regarding the see through bags that you have to put liquids in. Now for those that travel once or twice a year, the Ziplock bags are fine but when you are going through security as often as crew, they disintegrate very quickly. As a result, we started using see through make up bags of the same size. Sometimes they were allowed through, sometimes they weren't, so we went, on mass, to our flight ops manager who agreed to take it up on our behalf. He scheduled a meeting with the guy running security at our airport and they came to an agreement that these bags would be allowed. This was all put down in writing, so breathing a sigh of relief, we headed off to security armed with our bits of paper. And guess what, some guards would allow these bags and others still would not, regardless of what their own manager had written. So now, we're back to square one again! Not what I'd call an amazing result.

I also have to say that, since BAA has taken over the crew security in the North Terminal at LGW, it has become an absolute nightmare. I've been through when there are 6 or 7 of them, yet you often have to ask them to pass you your bags from the belt as they are usually too busy chatting, flirting with each other or singing! To add insult to injury, last time I had to ask, politely I may add, as I left the area I heard one off them mutter "snotty cow" under her breath. Its a damn good thing I was running late or I'd probably have lost my airside pass shortly after I told her what I thought of her comment. It's not all the guys there by any means, but some really need to go ASAP. It is a security area, not Blind Date, Facebook, TV Soap update and certainly not bl***y Pop Idol! :mad:

Sorry, feel better now!

Jsl

P.S. Having calmed down a bit, can I make it clear, there are some very good BAA guys working at LGW north terminal, who are friendly, professional and efficient. The above rant is not about those people. It's just a shame the not so good ones detract from the good work they do.

[HZ123]

At LHR there are now a number of Poles and to be fair they are at least polite. For a job (BAA security staff) I am suprised at the level of staff they recruit and I can only assume that these are some of the better ones at the Job Centre. Mind that you want to be around some of the new CC, many of them only qualified as they had a pulse. Older airports / airline staff must realise that neither organisations attract particularly wonderful staff as it is just another job with payscales on a downward slide that will continue to do so.

[call100]

OK. You have all individually made yourselves perfectly understood. You are singing from the same hymn sheet as the rest of the RZ workers....
Now...What are you going to do about it collectively????
The Trade Unions are beginning to try and tackle the problem at source. This has come about because those of who are determined have pushed for action.
If only the Pilots could unite against the system in place then perhaps it would speed things up.
Time to stop the petty insults just to vent your rage (Understandable rage) and do something constructive. Please.:)

[rsuggitt]

"The real next threat will not come through a security gate"

Correct, I hope. It wont come through a security gate because the gate is secured. Securing it removes one possible route for attack. Obviously, if security were lightened, there is a chance that this will again become a route for attack.

[Robert Campbell]

Patrick Smith, Ask the pilot | Salon Technology (http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2008/07/11/askthepilot283/index.html)


"Now, do I really need to point out that an airline pilot at the controls would hardly need a butter knife if he or she desired to inflict damage? As I've argued in the column before, the requirement that crew members be subject to the same screening as passengers is wasteful and pretty much pointless in the first place, especially when you consider that thousands of other workers with access to planes, including fuelers, caterers and cabin cleaners, receive only occasional random checks. But the idea of seizing a piece of standard airline cutlery from a uniformed pilot is lunacy."

This is a good read, and obviously, even the flight crews are getting the message that the TSA have the jobs they do because McDonald's wouldn't hire them. Michael Rivero

[Mark in CA]

Another good quote from the Salon article, which summarizes the whole gist of it:

"You ain't takin' this through," she says. "No knives. You can't bring a knife through here."

It takes a moment for me to realize that she's serious. "I'm ... but ... it's ..."

"Sorry." She throws it into a bin and starts to walk away.

"Wait a minute," I say. "That's airline silverware."

"Don't matter what it is. You can't bring knives through here."

"Ma'am, that's an airline knife. It's the knife they give you on the plane."

"No knives. Have a good afternoon, sir."

[rigpiggy]

Kind of like the twit, who tried to take my fork.

SG " you can't bring that "
AC "Since When?"
SG "Since 9/11"
AC " Get your Manager"

[Airbus Unplugged]

Copenhagen took my 10mm open end spanner.

You let me through with it yesterday?

Well I'm not today.

When are we going to rise up and take our lives back from these morons?:ugh:

[ft]

If they take your tools, no worries. After going through security, while flying as pax a while ago, I got a new multitool giveaway to bring with me on the plane with a bike mag I bought. No knife in it, mind you, but flathead, philips and hex. McGyver would have been able to build an RPG-equipped panda bear with it! :}

[rsuggitt]

While you talk about the inconvenience and unpleasantness of going through security, can I ask you to focus for a moment on what we're trying to prevent....
BBC NEWS | England | London | Three men admit bomb plot charges (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7505040.stm)

[Romeo India Xray]

Nice mug-shots in the article. I notice not a single pilot uniform/licence in sight. But as it happens we can all sleep soundly on our trans-atlantic sleeper beds, safe in the knowledge that the flight-deck crew will not use their bottle of water to blow up the plane.

So Rsuggit, what is your point?

Please dont turn out to be another one like Paarmo, you guys really irritate those of us who know what we are talking about.

[Xeque]

Yes rsuggitt. They 'planned' to use bombs that they made up from liquids disguised as soft drinks once on board.
As we all know, as has been posted in the thread before, and which you choose to ignore .... it has been scientifically proven that to put together such a bomb outside a laboratory is impossible.
I put the link up for you to read in a previous post - read it and understand it for heavens sake.
What they planned to do and what was actually accomplished are poles apart.
I plan to win the lottery next week - I won't of course but that doesn't stop me planning what I'd do with the money.
Remember the TV show 'Citizen Smith'? Same thing. All sorts of lunatics 'plan' things but they never come to anything.
Yet, somehow, the UK's elected 'leaders' seem to have gone OTT with this airport stuff.
Richard Reid (shoe bomber - failed) He's the reason we all have to take our shoes off at the airport. rsuggitt, just take off one of your shoes and then try to set fire to it with an ordinary box of matches. Be sure to report how successful you are in this forum. It was a non-starter from the outset. Why was it taken so seriously?
Same with the liquids bomb. For God's sake get a grip on reality will you and let us all, pax and crew alike, get back to some semblance of normality.

[rsuggitt]

The point is that there are people out there who want to bring down a plane.

[qwertyplop]

Mr Ruggit,

It's not your job to prevent that though. We have properly vetted people doing that for us behind the scenes, not people with a checkable 5 year history and a disclosure check masquerading as vetting.

Well motivated and paid OFFICERS from a number of crown services both overt and covert within that environment who know what they are doing and whom, on the face of it, seem to be doing it rather well.

Airport security is there merely to inconvenience anyone they interact with and to flog overpriced plastic bags and envelopes to people who don't know any better. Perhaps you could tell us Mr Muggit how many interventions at security you and your kind have made that made the difference to the issue we are discussing?

I'm sorry but that is the long and short of it, you serve no purpose and merely act as a visual sop to the hysterical masses.

[rvv500]

If a pilot or a cockpit crew member wants to bring down a plane, he has the biggest weapon in his hand, the control yoke.

Confiscating a few odds and ends at security screening is not going to be of any practical use.

[ft]

The point is that there are people out there who want to bring down a plane.

Yes. And thus we must have the appropriate measures in place to prevent them from doing so.

This thread, as you will notice if you read it, is about inappropriate measures taken. Measures which do not contribute to preventing those people from achieving their goals. Measures which are a significant nuisance at best, and at worst counterproductive to safety.

Your point was, in fact, not a point at all but merely a completely irrelevant restating of a fact already and obviously well known to all involved.

[rsuggitt]

Qwertyplop…. Short of inviting you to visit me at my place of work, I don’t know how else to convince you that I don’t work in airport security.
I don’t know how many interventions have been made at security. If there are none, I would say that this security check is proving to be a success in closing that route for attack

Can I point out that deliberate misspelling my username makes you look childish. Thanks for doing that, it tells me about the personality of the person I'm talking to.

RVV500… I don’t think you have considered all the possible risks and methods of attack.

Ft…. I take it you want security checks on aircrew to be lightened.
Do you know what is the single most dangerous thing you can do in a security setup?
And.. " Your point was, in fact, not a point at all but merely a completely irrelevant restating of a fact already and obviously well known to all involved."
It may be well known, but few of you seem to be behaving as if you believe it.

[Xeque]

How are you getting on with setting fire to your shoe rsuggitt?
From one of rsuggitts previous posts
can I ask you to focus for a moment on what we're trying to prevent....
What's this 'we're trying to prevent'?
So if he's not 'one of them' then is he a politician after all? Qwertyplop, take him up on his offer to show you where he works, you might get a free lunch out of it. I hear that the trough at the Palace of Westminster is quite something :E.

[RatherBeFlying]

NY Times reports that the trial testimony identified Hexamethylene Triperoxide Diamine as the "liquid explosive" -- it's really a powder.

You're looking at something like 10 hours to make the stuff -- then there's drying time in a cool, dark environment as sunlight and/or heat will set the stuff off.

So you could begin the synthesis in the lav as long as you can control the temperature below 0C during the mixing and precipitation phases -- remember 8 to 24 hours for the precipitation.

So why bother banning liquids when all you have to do is watch out for folks with icepacks:confused:

If you rush the filtering, washing and drying, you just might have a surprise by the time you reach customs at the other end:bored:

This is not something you can do unobserved in your seat and would take an hour or two in the lav followed by a sojourn in your seat with a large and conspicuous icepack.

How to Make "HMTD" Exposive (http://business.fortunecity.com/executive/674/hmtd.html)

HMTD @ 3Dchem.com (http://www.3dchem.com/molecules.asp?id=427#)

The stuff was once used in blasting caps, i.e. a sub-gram quantity. Transporting larger quantities incurs the distinct chance of not reaching the destination.

[rvv500]

"
RVV500… I don’t think you have considered all the possible risks and methods of attack. "

Yes, other possible methods, some being

Liquids and metal objects which can be purchased freely after security

The big axe which is in the cockpit

The cutlery which is in the plane

All the liquid bottles in the planehousand and other odds and end freely available in the plane

So what do you want to do? If a pilot or co-pilot want to to damage to an aircraft, you at security can do nothing about it, compre?

So it's time security goons stop acting like nitwits trying to confiscate nail cutters and water bottles from cockpit crew and learn to treat them with respect. They are far more qualified, have undergone much more rigorous training and have more discipline than the nuts at security. And they ensure that the plane and the 400 passengers take off safely and arrive safely at their destinations. They are playing in the same side as airport security, ensuring safety day in and day out.

[ft]

I take it you want security checks on aircrew to be lightened.

You did read the thread, didn't you? I have expressed my view and my reasoning earlier.

Do you know what is the single most dangerous thing you can do in a security setup?

Setting off a nuke is probably high up on the scale.

Robbing flight crew of their water bottles before a seven hour flight is also a surefire way to reduce aviation safety.

Making sure flight crew members will be weary and pissed off before boarding the plane is also a good way of decreasing safety.

My bet is, however, that you are going to say that making exceptions is the single most dangerous thing. As has been explained many times in this thread, that's a load of bull...

[rsuggitt]

"My bet is, however, that you are going to say that making exceptions is the single most dangerous thing. "

You're quite right. An exception creates a loophole or a weakness, and there's a chance someone will try to exploit it.

[rsuggitt]

"So if he's not 'one of them' then is he a politician after all? Qwertyplop, take him up on his offer to show you where he works, you might get a free lunch out of it. I hear that the trough at the Palace of Westminster is quite something "

OK, I'm willing to meet with one person providing he/she will donate £100 to my favourite charity when I demonstrate that I'm in neither of the two places you assume.

[ft]

Actually letting passengers onboard the aircraft is also a loophole or weakness, and the one which will most likely be exploited.

If you want to make security next to absolute, get rid of the pax and their bags. But you will not. Why not? Because it is ridiculous. The cost is not proportional to the security gains.

And the same thing goes for many of the security hassles currently imposed on flight crews. They are outright ridiculous.

The point (and this is an actual point) is that security measures have to make sense. You can always make everything just a little bit safer, but at some point the cost of making it safer will outweigh the benefits.

You have to draw a line. This thread is about where the line is drawn. When it comes to security screening of flight crews, it is quite often drawn in the wrong place these days.

Now I will go sit in my couch and try to figure out why I even bother.

[qwertyplop]

That's an interesting point about me spelling your name incorrectly rsuggit, I did not do it to annoy or belittle however. Please accept my apologies.

What was more interesting was that you failed to deal with the points I made.

When may I expect you to counter the points I made about the right educated people, with the right background and level of vetting and ongoing monitoring, with the right access to the pertinent intel, from the right crown service working in partnership with other crown services, doing the REAL job that security have no hope in a month of Sundays doing??

I believe that private security companies exist in this environment as a sop to the hysterical masses and that they do nothing more - the fact is they have no more chance of intervening and stopping something than they actually have of recognising something amiss in the first place for all of the aforementioned reasons. 'Need to know' old chap - and they don't need to know. They just need to stop 1 in 3 people with no rhyme or reason. Throw in the odd 'random' search simply because they can and Robert's your Dad's brother. It's a farce, we know it's a farce and if you are honest, you know it's a farce.

The fact that plots have been uncovered has NOTHING to do with a person earning the minimum wage, with respect to them, telling an 80 year old gentleman to take his shoes off and EVERYTHING to do with the professionalism of the crown security services in whatever form they take doing what they do overtly and covertly. That this happens is a CONSEQUENCE of this success. And this is the problem, inappropriate people being left with the minimum of supervision to make choices embedded within a lack of information and command & control. Sound familiar? It's the security operatives at every airport in the UK.

To suggest otherwise is a point from which you cannot argue a position with any credibility.

I'm sorry rsuggit but that's the reality of this issue.

[Flintstone]

That is a most eloquent and accurate assessment of where we are with this security farce. Those who stand gossiping by the x-ray machines and taking delight in confiscating toothpicks may not like it but then the truth often hurts.

[paarmo]

There seem to be five basic themes running throgh this post.
1. The banning of liquids over 100ml and pointy objects being taken through security checkpoints is wrong.
b. All aircrew no matter what their status should be treat as heads of state and be able to pass through security at any time without let or hindrance.
3. All passengers are a complete and utter waste of time and should be banned from travelling on aircraft.
d. All security personel are halfwits who are paid the minimum wage and should be treat as something less than human no matter what their instructions are from local management.
5.Anyone which includes myself and RSUGGIT who does not agree wholeheartedly with the above should not be allowed to say so and should be instantly regarded as a threat to the PPRUNE Forum and be attacked in highly personal terms.
I'm waiting for reasoned argument.
Reading the earlier posts I really don't think that you have a leg to stand on.
Pilots yes......professional?....I think that is a moot point if you read some of the preceding horror stories before you answer.

[AnotherRedWineThanks]

Hi, SLF here, I just thought I'd go back to the start of the thread and look for some reasoned argument. Post 1 started the topic with a question, post 2 asked another, post 3 was an anecdote and post 4 was reasoned argument, to the effect that there is no point in trying to disarm a soldier by removing his ceremonial belt buckle (or butter knife) while letting him keep his rifle (or aeroplane). Quite well reasoned, I'd say.

[rvv500]

Paarmo, what's clear is that

1.] You don't have a clue of what you're talking about.

OR

2.] You are a troll on this subject deliberately talking nonsense to elicit heated responses.

Either way you are a waste.

[Ladusvala]

Paarmo, read my last post above and you will find an argument (twice repeated) about your no. 1 and also some questions for you?

[58730]

00:30 Security level is raised to critical.

05:30 Terrorists break into Policeman's house and hold wife and kids hostage.

05:35 Wife calls husband and tells him to take substance through security to give to nasty man.

05:45 Flight crew are meticulously searched.

05:55 Policeman walks straight though security (as always).

08:45 Editors of newspapers rush to get new top story on the late second print.

Good thing there are no exceptions because we all know that "loopholes are the biggest threat to security". The policeman could also quite easily be a security worker with the same results.

[MPH]

Paarmo:
I hope you enjoyed your short rest. But, it looks like your new (repeat) arguments still don´t embrace the essential point of this whole post, and that is; ´what is the point of making flight crew undergo constant security checks´? The same crew that are in charge of taking an aircraft from A to B in a safe and regulated way. The same crew that have at their disposition a number of elements that make a 100ml bottle of water look like cotton candy. The same crew that have at their nail clippers taken away because the axe O/b, is not a liability! The same people that are flying and are given the responsability of being crew members of a registered aircraft and are employed by an official company, etc,etc! Random checks yes, but the constant checks and abuse, NO!!!:eek:

[rsuggitt]

"When may I expect you to counter the points I made about the right educated people, with the right background and level of vetting and ongoing monitoring, with the right access to the pertinent intel, from the right crown service working in partnership with other crown services, doing the REAL job that security have no hope in a month of Sundays doing??"

I'm very happy that we have such people working for us.

As soon as you can guarantee with your life that they will be 100% accurate and successful, I'l be even happier.


But, we seem to have reached an impass, and neither has convinced the other. I'm surprised at these negative attitudes to security, but I cant sway you over to my point of view. I'm a little surprised considering that you life is more at risk from terrorism than mine.

However, before we come to a standstill, I have only one last suggestion. If you feel it's really that bad, do what any other employee has a right to so... go on strike.

[Xeque]

Aww rsuggitt - don't go. What will we do without you? There'll only be paarma left. :{
Besides, we can't let you go until we know how you got on with setting fire to your shoe. At least give us the benefit of admitting that the shoe check is a complete waste of time.

p.s. The guys don't need to go on strike. All that is required for all of us - pax and crew - is to 'JUST SAY 'NO'!'

[rigpiggy]

Rsuggitt, everyday, I put my life on the line 100% for you/yours, I am the last line of defence, so at least give me the courtesy that you would give the security folks. Failing that go hide in your hole because the extremists will have won their economic "jihad"

[rsuggitt]

"Aww rsuggitt - don't go. What will we do without you? There'll only be paarma left. :{
Besides, we can't let you go until we know how you got on with setting fire to your shoe. At least give us the benefit of admitting that the shoe check is a complete waste of time."

I have no intention of burning my shoes, they're too expensive to waste. I also have no intention of getting hold of a detonator, and hiding it in the sole of my traininers.

"p.s. The guys don't need to go on strike. All that is required for all of us - pax and crew - is to 'JUST SAY 'NO'!'"

Let me be the first to encourage you to all say 'NO'.


It'll be fun reading about it in the papers.

[rsuggitt]

"Rsuggitt, everyday, I put my life on the line 100% for you/yours, I am the last line of defence, so at least give me the courtesy that you would give the security folks. Failing that go hide in your hole because the extremists will have won their economic "jihad""

In what way have I been discourteous?

[qwertyplop]

rsuggit wrote

"When may I expect you to counter the points I made about the right educated people, with the right background and level of vetting and ongoing monitoring, with the right access to the pertinent intel, from the right crown service working in partnership with other crown services, doing the REAL job that security have no hope in a month of Sundays doing??"

I'm very happy that we have such people working for us.

As soon as you can guarantee with your life that they will be 100% accurate and successful, I'l be even happier.


But, we seem to have reached an impass, and neither has convinced the other. I'm surprised at these negative attitudes to security, but I cant sway you over to my point of view. I'm a little surprised considering that you life is more at risk from terrorism than mine.

However, before we come to a standstill, I have only one last suggestion. If you feel it's really that bad, do what any other employee has a right to so... go on strike.

Never have I read a more provocative and uninformed view of the issues at hand. I suspect that it's because you are either involved with the issue from the other side of the security gates or it's because you simply do not understand the issue at hand.

Many of those involved at the sharp end of the aviation business are risk adverse - it's the nature of the business. Check, check and double check. With this comes an eye for detail but it's an experienced eye and one that takes in any number of details. I'm sorry to say this but it's something that our friends in security do not share, they are not motivated or trained to anywhere near the standard required to offer the kind of protection you believe that they offer. And the reality is that because of the pay and terms and conditions offered to these operatives, the role attracts the uneducated, uninterested and those whose communication skills which are not up to the level of interaction that the role requires. It's a double edged sword - they end up alienating the very people that would work with them to facilitate the responsibilities we all have in the airside environment. It's not rocket science.

I honestly believe that when Police, Customs and Immigration Officers cast an eye over us in the ports, they know exactly what they are looking for, they know what to ignore and what to take an interest in. It's why 95% of the travelling public, apart from the inevitable queues, are allowed to proceed through unhindered with the minimum level of interaction. They have the knowledge base and training to do this. I accept that there always exceptions to the rules but in my experience they are few and far between.

I know that the security operatives do not.

I'm not being cruel to these folks, they are doing a horrid job and I respect that but they could do it so much better in so many cases. That they do not suggests a degree of obstinance and stupidity better suited to another less critical environment.

I would suggest that if you want to be considered safe and free from risk in 100% (your words Sir) of the time you travel on an aircraft, then;

A) Don't get onboard the aeroplane - they are awfully complicated you know.

B) Don't rely on unmotivated, unskilled and poorly paid security people doing a poor job targeting the wrong people because they were simply left to get on with it and figure it out for themselves.

C) Etc.

[Piltdown Man]

rsuggit: You are more at risk because of pointless security rules and the scum that enforce them. Like with knifes, guns, fists or any other device/weapon, it is not the weapon per se that poses the threat - it's the person that has the criminal intent. Not one of the damn measures enforced by the "blind mullet" at the checkpoints seeks to identify any potential perpetrator. Instead they regard everyone as a threat. And that is plain bonkers! I can think of no other system anywhere which is so bloody pointless nor one which offers so little value for money. The system which you appear to hold is such esteem is the one that allows the bad guys to win.

Let me explain. The bad guys have to get their gadgets/components/weapons onto a airside to cause damage. How would they do it? The same way that I would if I was a perpetrator. You'll have take my word on that. With the little knowledge I have of procedures and locations, I reckon I that could I could get almost anything required to a specfic location. No problem. What you forget is that the bad guys don't have to worry about the rules. Those of us who do have to stick to the pointless charade and waste resources getting checked otherwise we lose our jobs. When you have to put up with the standard scumbag security guard patting you down for the n'th time that wek and giving you a hard time, because they can, it starts your flight off badly. We are only human and don't forget we are driving you! Stress before flight was almost certainly a major contributor to the Staines incident many years ago. And finally, the money which is wasted on airport security (approx. £20 per passenger) could be spent on actively hunting the bad guys.

I'd start shouting at your MP if I were you.

PM

[Abusing_the_sky]

Staff security?? Oh FFS take a hike!!! And an education whilst you're at it!Tell me what exactly is the point of the following?
Went to work yesterday, as you do, and had to go through staff "security". Everything in clear plastic bag, jacket off, shoes off, everything by "the book".
The overzealous security staff going through my lunch box, unwrapping my sandwiches.
Me (as advised by a Pprune friend): Excuse me Sir, do you mind putting on gloves when you do that?
The security staff not even looking at me: What's that love?
Me: well i believe it's a Health and Safety requierement to wear gloves when searching?:confused:
The Security (************** - that's swearing:mad:) Staff: Well we don't have any in here love, but we have some in the office.
(the office is something like 5-10mins walk)
Me: It's ok, I'll wait. In the mean time can you get YOUR manager to explain to MY manager why am I delaying a flight?
The SS: It's ok love, you can go through this time (zipping up my crew bag)
What's it gonna be next time??:ugh:
UK security staff need a few weeks of CRM and (just invented) Common Sense training. Tell me exactly how could or would i threaten a pax with my sandwiches? And as i asked before (don't know if i had a reply from likes of Paarmo and Rsuggit as they are on my ignore list), how would my Lipgloss, Perfume or Hairspray represent a threat to the pax when i have the actual REAL weapon (the a/c) on my hands???

This is getting so ridiculous

Rgds,
ATS

[hotmetal]

And if all the security idiocy we put up with as crew in the UK is so essential then why are we the only country in the world implementing it. The rest of the world can see what a nonsense it is but not the UK authorities.

[paarmo]

Hate to be picky but Richard Reid the "shoe bomber" was not trying to set fire to his shoe but plastic explosive secreted in the sole of his shoe.
What has not been mentioned in this post has been the increase in aircrew being arrested for being under the influence of alcohol since increased security checks have been put in place. Probably a coincidence but .......
There is also the question of smuggling by aircrew of drugs or money ( Money laundering ). The checks now in place would certainly deter me from attempting it.

[Flintstone]

So having failed to convince those of us in the know that 'security' is not a sham you're now trying to justify the whole debacle with allegations of drink/flying, drug smuggling and money laundering.

Pathetic really.

[paarmo]

I don't think that you are in the "know" about security. You are apparently aircrew and have a different perspective.
The people in the "know" about security are the people who recommended the present security levels to the Government. Professionals in security not in flying.

[Abusing_the_sky]

Oh Flinstone you are so right!!!

To the disapointment of Paarmo and Rsugitt ( i only know about their posts because Mr. ATS showed them to me), in my airline we are not allowed to leave the a/c nor purchase anything from any mobile crew shop otherwise we could face instant dismissal ( as stated in our contracts)
So if i have NO contact with ground employees (apart from the dispatcher), either they are airline ground agents, fuelers, you name it, how am I, a 5 years back checked aircrew being searched and abused every day when i report to duty, smuggling drugs, do money laundering, and so on?

Get real and get your facts right! If aircrew want to hijack a plane, they would do so, but confiscating their nail clippers or yoghurts won't make a difference!!:ugh:

Security Staff: Get some common sense and respect for those who decided to work harder than you and wanted more from life. And before you tell me i am just a little flight attendant and i have no right to say anything, i'll have you know that A: Mr. ATS IS a pilot for a commercial airline and he has to go through all this staff security $h!t every working day. B: he has an axe behind his seat so having his water confiscated won't make any difference. C: why are you all such :mad:heads and can't really see the truth when it's laid down to you on a silver plate?

You people make me sick. You swear, after a 2 days training, that you are going to protect and preserve. Like a policeman but unlike a policeman, you are just frustrated that you will never get far enough in life and you dare take it out on all aircrew!!
BRAVO, i have never seen or heard of so much stupidity in my entire life!:D:D:D

Rgds,
ATS

[qwertyplop]

Paarmo wrote

Hate to be picky but Richard Reid the "shoe bomber" was not trying to set fire to his shoe but plastic explosive secreted in the sole of his shoe.
What has not been mentioned in this post has been the increase in aircrew being arrested for being under the influence of alcohol since increased security checks have been put in place. Probably a coincidence but .......
There is also the question of smuggling by aircrew of drugs or money ( Money laundering ). The checks now in place would certainly deter me from attempting it.

What checks are those then Paarmo?

Could you reference and demonstrate both notions please? That is I would care to see the source of your information on alcohol followed by demonstrative effect of an untrained security operative employed by a private security company who has no executive powers on stopping crew trafficking contraband and money. I'd wager 99% of UK airport security operatives have no idea of what one can and can't take in and out of the UK in terms of prohibitions. The port control authorities might give them a little heads up of when to telephone them for a bit of help but as for intervention and follow up - no I don't think so.

You're approach to this is rather simplistic and somewhat transparent frankly - you can state quite reasonably that by virtue of there being rudimentary checks by security operatives there is a disruption effect on all the criminality that presumably you believe went on previously before such checks where introduced. And that these underpaid and unvalued security types are the answer to all the law enforcement problems in an airport. Please go on believing this because the naivity of this idea is rather touching. Have you discussed this with those in the airport whose real job is to do this work? Pop over to the Airport Policing Unit sometime and throw that one in. I suspect we'd hear the laughing from here.

Perhaps you are confused - the port control authorities do this and they are MOST CERTAINLY not security types employed by private companies, they did it before these impositions and they'll carry on doing after we've all gone. What utter nonsense to suggest otherwise with respect.

Please list your sources of information.

Thank you.

[qwertyplop]

Paarmo wrote

I don't think that you are in the "know" about security. You are apparently aircrew and have a different perspective.
The people in the "know" about security are the people who recommended the present security levels to the Government. Professionals in security not in flying.

Would you care to expand upon your present level of security clearance and the access to information and resources that you have that put you 'in the particular loop' the rest of us are out of.

I ask, with respect, because such things define the seriousness and level at which you play this game.

[paarmo]

I'm lead to believe that aircrew are virtually strip searched every time they transit security.
If during this search £600,000 in cash is discovered in a carry on bag or a large bag of white powder in your pocket I think that even the dimmest of security men would recognise this as being a bit strange and report it to his supervisor. As for the people alledgedly over the alcohol limit , these people are not challenged by security staff but their suspicions are passed to the airport Police who deal with it as soon as they feel able.
Just read the above after I posted. My security clearance is sufficient for my needs as it should be for everyone. I am not saying that I was involved in the decisions just that the people who were involved were security professionals and not aircrew.

[qwertyplop]

'You are led to believe'.

Anecdotal 'evidence' on which you base an argument? You have to do better than that I'm afraid with respect to the many intelligent and reasonable individuals here - this is rather insulting Old Chap.

But supposing you have a point - let's develop it shall we?

We all know you don't need to do that. We all know, as do the port control authorities, that if you are trafficking such an amount of cash or drugs then you simply pay off more minimum wage people who deliver the scoff to the aircraft and pop it onboard that way or any number of ways that things arrive airside without being checked properly because of more underpaid, undervalued security people on the access gates who have little idea about what goes in and out of the restricted area, they are more concerned in reading their papers, texting and generally 'hanging out' than searchng the scoff lorries going into that area. This is the point many airside workers have been making all along, it's not the airside workers who are the problem, it's the system of subjective searching that ignore the real risks. Nothing else. The present system of physical security is endemic of people who cannot see further than the end of their noses and don't know what it is they are looking for.

What sort of mug would walk contraband through a place where they knew they are going to get the half arsed third degree without exception? Your comments show a lack of generic knowledge around airfield operations and layouts and that concerns me given some of your comments. After you've visited the Airport Policing Unit and they've wiped the tears of laughter from their eyes, pop over to their colleagues in Customs, again I suspect we'll hear the laughing from here.

Security have a role at an airport - there is no doubt about it - it's just not what you think it is.

As for your security clearance - you don't even know what I'm talking about do you?

[paarmo]

I was under the impression that this post was about aircrew being searched, quite rightly so I believe ,when transitting security not about the overall security at airports. Aircrew seem to think that because they are employed as flying people then they are exempt from any form of screening at security checkpoints. A ludicrous position I think that even you would agree with.

[Flintstone]

I don't think that you are in the "know" about security. You are apparently aircrew and have a different perspective.
The people in the "know" about security are the people who recommended the present security levels to the Government. Professionals in security not in flying.

I am aircrew but you have no idea of my background or what else I might do or have done. You make the cardinal error of acting upon an untested assumption. Clearly you have no intelligence or security training beyond that given to a cosmetic and drinking water confiscator.

You are not in the know. If you were you certainly wouldn't be blabbing about it on here let alone making a complete Horlicks of the whole thing. Something along the lines of every squaddie claiming to have been in the SAS :rolleyes:

[qwertyplop]

Stop wriggling Paarmo!!

Moving the goalposts now will not explain your point of view away with the greatest of respect to you.

Security in this context is about all the issues at an airfield not just what you pick and choose, again, an absolute misnomer on your part if you believe otherwise. If you were 'under the impression' - I hope I have gone some way towards correcting the assumptions you previously held.

In this debate - the context is everything. It's vital to understanding the issues at hand. And yes, some crew could help themselves a bit more when they pass through under the present impostions, I totally agree.

However, I regularly see security people taking an unhealthy and unwarranted interest in crews. Immigration Officers and Customs Officers simply going about their business seem to attract stupid levels of attention as well although they just seem to suck it up and smile. That said, I presume security go on holiday from time to time. Plenty of chances to get them back I guess...!! :}

Rubber glove please.

[paarmo]

I totally agree that airside security should be reviewed but this particular post is about aircrew resenting the attentions of security. If you are au fait with previous posts I think that we are in agreement that aircrew do not always help themselves when they try to circumvent security for the sake of doing it and to make a point.
Local agreements are the way forward and perseverence if they do not immediately live up to expectations as Jet set lady was keen to point out.
I really think that you should accept the fact that aircrew will always be subject to screening even if the liquids ban is modified or even dropped in the future.
I live near an industrial site where I need to show a pass to enter and leave, am subject to personal searches on arrival and departure and also a full search of my vehicle also on arrival and departure.This adds some 30 minutes each day to travelling time.
I can't say I have a great deal of sympathy for someone who has to take his shoes off and behave in a responsible manner.

[fireflybob]

Aircrew seem to think that because they are employed as flying people then they are exempt from any form of screening at security checkpoints.

Nonsense, Paarmo!

Nobody is saying that at all. But how can confiscating my first officer's yogurt or set of dividers really protect us from "terrorism"?

[ExSp33db1rd]

Paarmo - what has smuggling vast quantites of cash got to do with aircraft safety - unless it is carried in 50p pieces in which case there might be a weight and balance problem ?

You sound like some sort of P.C. Thought Policeman who wants to control every aspect of our aircrew lives. ( ex. in my case, but I still suffer this total nonsense as a pax. )

I'm not condoning smuggling or drug running, but don't muddy the waters by confusing the two issues. :ugh:

[Flintstone]

Here we go, another paarmo tangent.

Never mind search procedures at your local cash and carry, bonded warehouse or whatever. That's all just smoke and mirrors. I'm still waiting for your response to qwertyplop's very specific questions here...What checks are those then Paarmo?

Could you reference and demonstrate both notions please? That is I would care to see the source of your information on alcohol followed by demonstrative effect of an untrained security operative employed by a private security company who has no executive powers on stopping crew trafficking contraband and money. I'd wager 99% of UK airport security operatives have no idea of what one can and can't take in and out of the UK in terms of prohibitions. The port control authorities might give them a little heads up of when to telephone them for a bit of help but as for intervention and follow up - no I don't think so.

You're approach to this is rather simplistic and somewhat transparent frankly - you can state quite reasonably that by virtue of there being rudimentary checks by security operatives there is a disruption effect on all the criminality that presumably you believe went on previously before such checks where introduced. And that these underpaid and unvalued security types are the answer to all the law enforcement problems in an airport. Please go on believing this because the naivity of this idea is rather touching. Have you discussed this with those in the airport whose real job is to do this work? Pop over to the Airport Policing Unit sometime and throw that one in. I suspect we'd hear the laughing from here.

Perhaps you are confused - the port control authorities do this and they are MOST CERTAINLY not security types employed by private companies, they did it before these impositions and they'll carry on doing after we've all gone. What utter nonsense to suggest otherwise with respect.

Please list your sources of information.




You have the floor paarmo.

[ExSp33db1rd]

Paarmo - In 40 years of flying I once - repeat once - suspected, repeat only suspected - another crew member of maybe having consumed alchohol before flying. I handled it. Lay off that angle it's a no brainer.

[qwertyplop]

Paarmo wrote

I totally agree that airside security should be reviewed but this particular post is about aircrew resenting the attentions of security. If you are au fait with previous posts I think that we are in agreement that aircrew do not always help themselves when they try to circumvent security for the sake of doing it and to make a point.
Local agreements are the way forward and perseverence if they do not immediately live up to expectations as Jet set lady was keen to point out.
I really think that you should accept the fact that aircrew will always be subject to screening even if the liquids ban is modified or even dropped in the future.
I live near an industrial site where I need to show a pass to enter and leave, am subject to personal searches on arrival and departure and also a full search of my vehicle also on arrival and departure.This adds some 30 minutes each day to travelling time.
I can't say I have a great deal of sympathy for someone who has to take his shoes off and behave in a responsible manner.

We are not in agreement because I don't really believe you know what it is you are talking about Paarmo. I ask you about your security clearance, more specifically have you been vetted properly yourself, and you side step the question. I mention the regime of security at the airfields and you want to focus on one bit, the staff channel, because crew will be picked up laundering money and trafficking drugs through there. It is because of comments like this that I do not believe you know what it is that is being discussed here. That's not the way this is debated - it ignores too many crucial and pivitol points Old Chap that if you had a systemic knowledge of airfield operations you'd actually understand what it is that pisses folks off.

And now you mention local agreements? Madness with respect.

Let's introduce more ambiguity into this process and let's introduce more unskilled and untrained people into the idea of deciding what's appropriate on an airfield by airfield basis across the UK. If there was a cocktail for disaster, then this would be the ingredients for such a thing.

Good grief. :rolleyes:

For the record, I think everyone going airside should present themselves at the checkpoints. If you bleep, then you submit to a search. Beyond that, no random searches because it's these that lead people to believe they are being picked upon. Either the machines are calibrated correctly or they are not. It's not my problem.

Exceptions for law enforcement carrying weapons, no weapon however, then they go through the barrier as well.

I think this is reasonable, equitable and fair.

I'm off to bed now. Good night EVERYONE..!! :zzz:

[llondel]

I don't think any of the recent cases that made it to PPRuNe of aircrew being hauled in for alcohol checking turned out to have any substance. So that's another minus point for security, increasing stress levels of the fingered crew for no good reason.

[ExSp33db1rd]

qwertyplop - You have it right, sensible security for everyone is no problem, it's the present madness that is so stupid and frustrating.

[Abusing_the_sky]

Paarmo...What???:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Just stop contradicting yourself. Now you're against aircrew, the next second you agree with aircrew's demands. Just make up your mind for Christ's Sake!

Searched by an Industral Estate security staff, day in day out?? You're having a laugh! Bring it on then, what am i going to do, place an unauthorised choc. wrapper on the grass??:ugh:

Get a life love, stop picking on the bigger than you people. You want a spot on security, then have a word with the security manager i reported and took to court, and now he's facing trial because of his unreasonable behaviour. He had me strip-searched because i refused to hand in my perfume and I, aircrew, had been taking to a side and strip searched, everything off and some sleazy woman's hands searching me!
That's why we think staff security are a bunch of mentally challenged dick:mad:s!!! Because they over react to a minor thing when we could have 5 pax plotting to bring down an a/c, each one of them carying a *** amount of explosive. Can you see the logics to this or do i have to draw a coloured map for you???


DESPICABLE is the word for your lot. STAFF SECURITY? Maybe change it to Staff Abusers/Pi$$ takers

Dare to talk back and say i'm not right... Come on Paarmo, I dare you...


Rgds,
ATS

[rvv500]

Paarmo is a troll, deliberately winding up, moving goalposts and generally talking nonsense.

His comment on alcohol detection of pilots at security screening shows what a joke he is.

Suggest all avoid replying to him and ignore him.

[S78]

Paarmo,

You really have no idea of what goes on at airport security checks. The goons employed check for liquids and anything sharp. They wouldn't recognise 200K in cash or know what to do if they found it. If they found a white powder they might test it for explosives but that's it and they certainly wouldn't consider referring it to Customs - not least because they cannot tell the difference between Customs uniform and a pilot's:ugh:

A few months ago I took a piece of coral through security in a box (coral is on the customs prohibited/restricted list). Security x-rayed the box - I could see the screen and I couldn't work out what it was - and let it through without a second glance.

The point is they are conditioned to check for liquids over 100ml because of the August 06 plot and anything vaguely sharp because of 9/11. Anything else is above their pay grade and they are not interested. I could also mention that both of these plots involved passengers NOT CREW so why do airside workers continue to be harrassed by security for such petty items when most have access to vehicles which can be rammed into aircraft or fuel tankers?:hmm:



S78

[S78]

Before Paarmo starts off another indignant 'pliots deliberately taking banned items into the RZ' post, I'd better state that I was lawfully in possession of said coral and was taking it through to the customs office.


The point being made was: when presented with something unusual security didn't respond - not even a "what's that mate?"





S78

[Dragon 83]

I think all the comments here are lost from those that really need to be apprised, that being the higher authority making these ridiculous rules followed by security staff.

We cannot return to older lax screening methods but I feel aircrew are trusted employees given airport passes based on stringent background checks and professional training programs. We are the least likely of threat profiles yet are often screened more diligently than passengers.

There seems to be no discretionary or common sense practice allowed by airport security staff.

I have been in the business a long time and I think we are exclusive, professional, and rigidly trained. We are responsible for the machine we fly, the safety and comfort of those that fly with us yet we are frequently treated as risky individuals by security staff. I don't understand the current process nor do I like being treated without regard for my profession.

[Flintstone]

Having waaayyy too much time on my hands this morning I clicked on a few buttons. I'm more convinced than ever that paarmo is a frustrated wannabee who is taking out his/her failings in here. Some gems from paarmo's posts...

Yes aircrew can do all the damage that they want and endanger aircraft which is precisely why they should be monitored more closely than anyone else.

Here's a 'tell'.
Can I say that the more GCE's and the more money people are paid then the more they feel that they are above being treated like the rest of us plebs. Solicitors and Doctors are the worst but I think Pilots are slipping rapidly into third place.....In this autopilot age they are after all highly paid bus drivers. Ahhh, "highly paid". I think we're seeing the root of the jealousy here.


On why penknives are banned but not crash axes.
A Swiss army knife with a 3" blade is a much more lethal option as it is easy to use... Which is why in their wisdom the CAA have banned Swiss army knives and not the emergency axe
The Sun headline "CAA Bans Emergency Equipment!"


On security at Teeside airport.
Been there done that got the T shirt. They are inefficient, slow ,unpleasant and jobsworths.
I thought security were paarmo's friends?


Trolling, anyone?
The present levels of security at airports does very little to catch terrorists. In fact as far as I am aware not one terrorist has been captured at a British airport in "flagrente" (sic) since it all started....In addition security is always playing catch up with attempts and "intelligence" gleaned from elsewhere


So what do we have here? Someone whose job takes them to a warehouse (white van driver?) demonstrating envy of qualified professionals basing his/her knowledge of aviation security upon living near an airport and a few package holidays ( Paarmo - Member Reviews - TripAdvisor (http://www.tripadvisor.com/members-reviews/Paarmo) )

Do we need any more convincing of troll status?


Oh, one more for laughs and my personal favourite. On the subject of flying home our troops from active service and protecting them from terrorists.
Yes I suppose you could always land them at night without lights. That would hide them a little bit.
Land them in the dark. Brilliant!! Why didn't the scrambled egg brigade think of that? I tell you paarmo, you should be running this country ;)

[pilotbear]

Definitely too much time, why aren't you out watching the planes today at FAB?:ok:

[rsuggitt]

"There seems to be no discretionary or common sense practice allowed by airport security staff. "

Good. Discretion = potential loophole.

[Robert Campbell]

I just heard on the morning news that TSA is introducing separate screening areas for pilots at certain airports.

The reason cited was that it was being done to spare the SLF the trauma (my word) of seeing the pilots cut ahead in line.

From KTVU, Oakland, CA:ugh:

[Storminnorm]

The only "potential loophole" in airport security is the
Massive loophole between the ears of the "security" staff.:suspect:

Could I use this rare visit to ask everyone on this thread to
put Paarmo on thier "IGNORE" list. Thank You All. Bye Bye.

[qwertyplop]

I have to say that as much as I find the targeting of staff/crew through the security points unpalatable and over the top, I also find some of the comments directed towards these folks equally unpleasant. That said, some of them are as much to blame as the system but as I said before, some people's reactions, while understandable, simply make the situation worse. I resolved not to go there some time ago. Can't be bothered to be like them.

Airports are such interesting places because of the people within them and that invariably includes those whose skill sets are different to those of us with professional backgrounds, to focus on that point is only going to aggravate this delicate situation with the security operatives even more. It's an easy thing to do when most of us are faced with the situations we are faced with daily but I am not going to belittle someone else regardless of what they might do to me, I can't be arsed and I'm better than that. We all are.

PUSH OUT THE JIVE - BRING IN THE LOVE.

As much as I despise the stupidity, I have resolved never to stoop to the levels of crassness and stupidity of someone who assumes that I'll comply simply because they tell me I'm going to be searched. I always make a point of telling them that they won't be doing anything until I have consented and if this is a problem, we can ask for the police and a supervisor because alluding to an assault is something that makes me feel 'threatend and violated'. It always works. Make sure you know your rights and insist upon them being adhered to, pity the fool who does not understand this before they lay hands on me.

I simply ignore them thereafter, they are a small part of my day and while they are putting shoes through the x-ray machine, I know that I'll be doing no end of interesting and worthwhile things that I've trained years to do and that people generally benefit from. This is my victory.

I've gone down the road of getting angry and refusing to comply with some of the more stupid requests, it was a small victory but ultimately only singled me out for more attention in the long run, if that's all they have in their lives, fine, I was happy to have been of service and they'll be left in no doubt I could not give a flying fig about their self imposed rules, their regrets of a life less usefully lived and their pompus half assed approach to protecting me from myself.

Thank you and good night.

[Mark in CA]

A little off topic, but this is an excellent paper by Ohio State political science professor John Mueller. Titled "The Quixotic Quest for Invulnerability: Assessing the Costs, Benefits, and Probabilities of Protecting the Homeland." It lays out some common sense premises and policy implications, and the whole paper is worth reading.

http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty/jmueller/ISA2008.pdf

[rigpiggy]

It's amazing how much shorter this topic is with paarmo and suggit on the ignore list:ugh:

[Storminnorm]

That's my good deed done for yesterday then:ok:

[blimey]

A Swiss army knife with a 3" blade is a much more lethal option as it is easy to use

So why can Sikhs take their ceremonial daggers (kirpans) airside?

[Ancient Observer]

It has gone from thoughtful, to boring, and now to silly. Can we close it please? This "debate" has been going on for a long time. Can't we just accept that the Security screening is unpleasantly onerous, that some of the staff aren't the brightest, and that some of the crew reactions are OTT ? It seems prtetty clear that either seat at the pointed end could, er, seriously damage the 'plane without either a pair of scissors or a bottle of "water".
Now let's all get a life.............

[Xeque]

You are absolutely right.
It's all very well for all of us, pax and crew alike, to moan away about this ridiculous situation but the sad thing is that Pprune is a semi-private forum that only people with an interest in commercial aviation ever get to see. Mr & Mrs Ordinary on their once a year hols to Majorca never see the forum, never get a chance to understand the stupidity of the system that is currently in place, never get to voice an opinion of any kind.
If you want to stop this rot you have to do something that grabs the politicians by the scruff of their necks and thrusts them, face down into the mire. Then, you might - just might, get their attention.
It's the politicians you have to go for because all of this rubbish came from them in the first place. The airport operators don't care because they have the decisions of the politicians to fall back on. The security personnel - forget it. They're drones with no concious thought or opinion one way or another.
You need help from the media - much as many of you despise them. We have one or two known journo's who occasionally (at great risk to their flame proof underwear) contribute to this forum. Let's use them.
Nothing will draw attention to this lunatic situation more than banner headlines one morning in the tabloids.
And I say again - JUST SAY NO. Several contributors to this thread have suggested various ways in which to do this that results in the security Neanderthal realising that he really is on shaky ground.
Qwertyplop is right ...
I have resolved never to stoop to the levels of crassness and stupidity of someone who assumes that I'll comply simply because they tell me I'm going to be searched. I always make a point of telling them that they won't be doing anything until I have consented and if this is a problem, we can ask for the police and a supervisor because alluding to an assault is something that makes me feel 'threatend and violated'. It always works. Make sure you know your rights and insist upon them being adhered to, pity the fool who does not understand this before they lay hands on me.
Use it. Make it work. Use your intelligence as people with jobs at the higher end of the food chain to deal with these irritants in the most effective way - by putting them in a position where they have to make a rational decision but can't. You will see that they will back down every time.
There was an earlier post where a flight crew were denied passage to air-side because they had a pass for a different airport. I don't know why - perhaps they'd been diverted?. Their response - 'OK We'll just go back to the hotel until you (security) sort it out'. Brilliant! Security drone realises he might be personally called to account for delaying a flight and backs down.
'Get your supervisor and a police officer over here - now!' has to be one of the most powerful responses you can use against these cretins.
But people - don't just moan. Do something!

[qwertyplop]

Let's have a 'smiling' summer folks, security can ask for anything and we'll just smile and tell them to 'knock themselves out' because we just don't care, let them do their worst because we've given up being bothered. Rage against the machine people by smiling, give them a cheeky comment and a wink. This will wind them up even more than the expected 'kicking off' some of us engage upon. Sympathise with how hard their day must be doing that work and tell them how you've got to go somewhere nice instead. They'll be spewing.

This could be our 'summer of love'. :ok:

And while you are reaching for the sky, think of them putting through verruca infested sandals and smile to yourself and your troubles will begin to drift slowly away.

:cool:

[Fly3]

Just found this.

WASHINGTON — Air travelers may soon be spared the annoyance of airline pilots cutting in front of them at security checkpoints.
The Transportation Security Administration today begins testing a new program that lets pilots go to a separate checkpoint where a screener checks ID cards but does no physical search.

"It will definitely be a benefit to passengers not having to see someone cut in line," said Capt. John Prater, president of the Air Line Pilots Association.

The TSA is starting 60-day tests of the pilots-only checkpoints at Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport, Pittsburgh International Airport and Columbia Metropolitan Airport in South Carolina. The program could expand to other airports if the test shows that pilots can get through checkpoints quickly, TSA assistant administrator John Sammon said.

The concept of letting the nation's 75,000 pilots avoid being screened for weapons has drawn criticism from the Association of Flight Attendants, which says it is safer to screen everyone boarding an airplane.

Prater said the system will improve security by checking pilot IDs to verify that the ID-holder is a pilot and not someone using a stolen or forged airline ID. A TSA screener will check each ID card against a database of all pilots and match the photo on the card with the database photo, Sammon said.

Prater said searching pilots for weapons isn't necessary because "pilots are already in the cockpit. They don't need anything else with them" to destroy an airplane.

Sammon said a separate pilots-only checkpoint could speed security lines for passengers and make those checkpoints calmer.

Mike Flack, director of the Columbia airport, said he expects the system will speed things up. "I don't see any downside to it," Flack said. "I don't see any loss to security."

The system was mandated by Congress, which passed a broad anti-terror law last summer requiring the TSA to give flight crews "expedited access through screening."

Has commonsense finally kicked in?

[Romeo India Xray]

Finally some common sense from Stateside :D

Now give it about 10 years and the UK should follow suit (isnt it about 10 years time lag (except when going into war)?).

Xeque, probably some of the best comments and suggestions on the subject that I have read so far. It's almost a shame I'm based in a country where we have sensible security rules and helpful staff who exhibit total respect for you and your position (which in turn ensures that I have total respect for them too), I would have loved to try some of your suggestions out.

And for my last point on the subject .... Isn't life blissfull without Paarmo and Rsuggitt :D!

[EatMyShorts!]

I hope that this message was not fake ;)

What I found interesting is the sentenceThe concept of letting the nation's 75,000 pilots avoid being screened for weapons has drawn criticism from the Association of Flight Attendants, which says it is safer to screen everyone boarding an airplane.It is not their business... :suspect:

[paarmo]

First. It is only a trial.
Second. The US is not renowned for making sensible decisions if the last 20 years is anything to go by.
Third.The Flight Attendants Union is opposing the trial.
Fourth. The US Pilots are obviously trusted not take anything on board which is not likely in this Country if some of the contributors to this forum are to be believed. ( I saw that the Great Escape was on TV over the weekend and immediately thought of yourselves doing everything to make the " Goons " jobs difficult.)
Fifth. It only applies to Pilots and not stewards so ABS will still be kicking off everytime she tries to pass security.
Sixth. This was obviously achieved after local negotiations which is something which I have been banging on about all the time and I have been told that it does not work.
PS Nice try Storminnorman but no cigar. If you knew how popular parmos were and what they are then you would realise all the single a's have gone and latecomers are having to use double and triple a's.

[brakedwell]

Isn't life blissfull without Paarmo and Rsuggitt !

You spoke too soon, the plonker is back and spouting his usual rubbish! :eek:

[Storminnorm]

The "plonker" isn't back on my screen mate.
"Ignored".
Perfect.:ok:

[brakedwell]

Good idea, both plonkers have been "eliminated"! ;)