Frustrated (?) pilots and security screening

[qwertyplop]

Come on guys, play nice. ;)

I quite enjoyed their remarks actually. Opinions are like assholes, we've all got one and some stink.

I bleeped today when I got to work and, as always now, I had a laugh and a joke with the operative but, as usual, got the usual grunt and filthy look. Clearly he is more uncomfortable with the situation than I.

Never mind, I'm still smiling. :)

[Out Of Trim]

It's strange that sometimes you "bleep" and sometimes not! Despite being similarly dressed on all occasions.

Apparantly they fiddle with the sensitivity sometimes and the ones at LGW - give a programed random bleep - So you get searched even if nothing metalic has actually triggered the Arch. :ugh::ugh:

But, I agree - best way is to smile and hopefully wind the goons up!

[Jimmy Do Little]

Agreed! Things are getting a little out of control. We're supposed to be the people who are "...responsible for the safety of...", but more and more we're treated like the bad guy.

Fly Safe

[Romeo India Xray]

Neither of them are back on my screen now :ok:. The banter was fun to start with, but tedium rapidly eroded the entertainment value.

I have not beeped in the staff channel for over a month, but have beeped a number of times as SLF (maybe we have sensible settings here?). I have however had to suffer perpetual politeness, reasonable requests always topped off with "Sir" and "have a good day/flight". Wasn't it nice when things were like that in the UK?!

RIX

[Abusing_the_sky]

Loooooooooooove the "ignore" button, whoever invented it is a genius!:}

Good news coming from USA but like someone else asked, when will it reach the UK?:sad:

Adopted a whole new attitude when going through security. Everytime the magic gate beeps and i'm supposed to be searched i ask them to wear gloves. In the mean time (as advised by a dedicated Ppruner) i ask for a chair to sit on when taking my "killer" heels off as i could lose my balance and injure myself.
Then they move to my crew bag, i ask for new gloves. Check my lunch box - change the gloves. Liquid test - 20p per perfume sprayed on the magical cotton stick. They think i'm joking; i simply say: "Get your manager"

It's actually great fun now. And it's free fun too! Front row seats and unlimited tickets:ok:


Rgds,
ATS

PS: Mr ATS might be in trouble now for bringing back a bottle of Fanta from CIA APT and he didn't go through customs. I told you honey, they call it smuggling :}

[cortilla]

I've never really had any problems as crew out of my own airport but when i positioned back as pax once from STN when i bleeped, to say the guy was frisky is a bit of an understatement.

So here's a question. What exactly are our rights. Is there some kind of charter somewhere that stipulates exactly what security can and can't do. Or shall we make a list here??

[Johnny767]

Trust the F/A Union, to stick their "fat face," where it doesn't belong. It would "make-my-day" to get separated from the F/A's.

The security BS we have had to endure, has been largely caused by the authorities (with covert backing from the Airlines) not having the courage to separate the Pilots from the F/A's.

And I believe that the Security crowd have some concerns about F/A's. Partly because there personal effects are accessible to the passengers.

Where ours are locked, with us, in the Flight Deck.

[Xeque]

Some interesting stuff here
Telegraph report (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2444844/Terrorist-threat-to-airports-over-lax-staff-security.html)

[Xeque]

This is a couple of years old but indicates that the rot was apparent even then....
Just plain stupidity (http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.privacyinternational.org/images/ssa.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.privacyinternational.org/index.shtml%3Fcmd%255B342%255D%255B%255D%3Dc-1-Stupid%2BSecurity%2BAwards%26als%255Btheme%255D%3DStupid%252 0Security%2520Awards%26conds%255B1%255D%255Bcategory........ %255D%3DStupid%2520Security%2520Awards&h=192&w=304&sz=24&hl=en&start=2&tbnid=ht6DDJljbiHzkM:&tbnh=73&tbnw=116&prev=/images%3Fq%3DStupid%2Bsecurity%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26safe%3D off%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official%26sa%3DG)

[paarmo]

Here we are after a week and no postings. If you would rather hurl personal abuse rather than debate and air your views on this or any subject then the advertisers on the forum as a whole will notice the drop in postings and withdraw their money. The forum as a whole will close and the ones amongst you who resort to hurling personal abuse will have nowhere to harangue the people who actually pay your wages and who are willing to propose an alternative view to your vision of the future.
If you don't like the alternative views by myself and others, tough , because they are the views of the vast majority of people in this country and also it would appear the majority of MP's who at the end of the day oversee the rules in Parliamentary Committee and also who actually do debate them on the floor of the House.
If you don't like to follow the rules I suggest you consider a change of career.
As an aside the two "slappers" on the XL flight recently didn't like the rules on board the aircraft and were promptly dealt with by the cabin crew. If the rules are valid in the air then surely you must follow the rules on the ground no matter how much you disagree with them.

[el #]

Paarmo, don't waste your time babbling further, by now you're on the ignore list of most people here.

Yes, you are being ignored by the ones that professionally fly people like you and me everywhere and everyday, and are hassled without a reason by people that wouldn't have a job otherwise. The ones you're suggesting to take a change of career, perhaps to be replaced by your dear security staff and politicians ?

So after typing this last one, I'll ignore you as well. Really suggest you get a life and either develop a working brain, or stop worrying altogether.

[Storminnorm]

I love it when the screen tells me that there is a message from
"Paarmo", but I can't read it because Paarmo is on my "ignore"
list.:ok:

[wishicouldland]

I am now convinced of two things. Firstly Paarmo is a security thug or failed security thug of some description. Secondly, that on the whole I shall no longer smile sweetly and accept it.

Today after having my medicine confiscated I said to the "security officer" Couldn't we all be part of the same team, after all, aircrew are at the sharp end of the security issue and really should be seen as part of the solution and so on. Shocked at the finger wagging reply. I was told that we were not part of the same team and that we are not at the sharp end. The people who are at the sharp end are the soldiers and others in Iraq and that he had served in Iraq and so on and we knew nothing of the consequences of terrorism.

Glad my cough medicine didn't make it through then!

Speaking to the supervisor was as much use as fitting an ashtray to the top of the aircraft and the duty manager wouldn't discuss the issues. Going through security later in the day I was warned not to display any attitude that had ben displayed earlier or risk losing my pass. All from someone off of a 2 day training course. Furious, frustrated, - you bet.

Willing to listen to Paarmo calling aircrew slappers? No way - you are now on my ignore list and what I think of you and your comments deleted. Odious springs to mind however!

For the first time ever in my career I do not want to go to work tomorrow, I no longer have the patience to go through this crap day after day.

[Litebulbs]

Going through central search at LGW North last night, I saw something that capped it all, a baby in a push chair wearing a little pair open toed sandals. They were the size of a credit card. The mum had taken off her shoes and put them on the x-ray machine and went back to pushing her child. On going past one of the security people, she was pulled up and asked, not too politely I may add, to put the baby's shoes through the x-ray! I burst out laughing, grabbed my shoes and walked off rather quickly as the three shoe monitors looked round to see who found the incident amusing!

[Abusing_the_sky]

wishicouldland,

Don't let likes of Paarmo get to you; we all put him on our Ignore list and it works wonders!:ok:

As for your medicine being confiscated and being threatened by a spotty faced oik that you're going to lose your airpass?!? My God that IS simply out of order. Might want to speak to a solicitor, get some legal advice. Just in case....;)

This is what i do now a days:
Adopted a whole new attitude when going through security. Everytime the magic gate beeps and i'm supposed to be searched i ask them to wear gloves. In the mean time (as advised by a dedicated Ppruner) i ask for a chair to sit on when taking my "killer" heels off as i could lose my balance and injure myself.
Then they move to my crew bag, i ask for new gloves. Check my lunch box - change the gloves. Liquid test - 20p per perfume sprayed on the magical cotton stick. They think i'm joking; i simply say: "Get your manager"


Under no circumstances should you accept to be treated like that. Outrageous behavior from the security oik. Don't be afraid to argue with them as long as you know you're right.

Hope you enjoy work tomorrow despite the spotty faced oik who ruined it for you today.

Rgds,
ATS

Paarmo i suggest you give back the cough medicine you confiscated unlawfully from wishicouldland

[layinlow]

paarmo is jsut the person the Gestapo needs. Dumb, loud, and obnoxious

[rigpiggy]

Who's Paarmo?:E

[brakedwell]

Who's Paarmo?

A prat on my ignore list. :p

[Abusing_the_sky]

My guess is that Paarmo is a Security Staff (funny that - SS:eek:) at DURHAM TEES VALLEY AIRPORT (http://www.pprune.org/forums/airlines-airports-routes/260239-durham-tees-valley-airport-4-a.html):E


Rgds,
ATS

[cortilla]

WISHICOULDLAND,

I See your profile says you're from edinburgh. Now granted i havn't been in the game for that long but i have worked out of 2 airports (one as flight crew and one as not), and i've found the edinburgh lot generally friendly. I've certianlly never experienced them to be rude. I really hope it's not a new trend for the airport.

[rigpiggy]

Just being a smart aleck, #740 on this thread

[wishicouldland]

Cortilla,

Nope, wasn't EDI. It was at another BAA airport that I happen to be temporarily based at.

ATS

Thank you - The full details are just too much to bear like being told to "Just get out" when challenging them and so on. But he didn't have any spots. Just an ex-serviceman who still wants to be aggressive.

I have spoken with Balpa and filed a report and in conjunction with Balpa have made a formal complaint to BAA over the attitude of the staff and had a good discussion on the implications of refusing shoes off, searches and so on.

Lastly, and of great note is that when down in the crewroom a colleague pulled a bottle of water left over from the previous day from his flightbag. He had gone through security 2 minutes after me. The same staff, same place. No consistancy at all.

And the good news, well after spending most of the afternoon driving round chemists I have finally found a brand of cough medicine that comes in 100ml bottles. Tomorrow should be fun................

[paarmo]

You really should be called wishicouldread. I did not call aircrew slappers and if you could read the post rather than scanning it and coming up with your own interpretation of what you think you have seen I would be grateful if you could apologise.
Rather typical repostes really from everyone. Lose the argument and fall back on personal abuse.
Are you really this thin skinned or is it an act?

[Xeque]

This is just a passing thought but shouldn't an official receipt be issued for items of personal property 'confiscated' from law abiding citizens - air crew and passengers alike?

[BusyB]

paarmo,
Please tell me how MP's represent the publics wishes with ref to MP's allowances!!

MP's do not have enough knowledge to judge anything without EXPERT advice. Something they are sadly lacking in.:ugh:

[hotmetal]

Security staff at UK airports have no 'powers' to confiscate property. If you want to go airside and you have prohibited items you will have to voluntarily abandon them or go back and leave them somewhere else [like your locker or whatever]. You can't go airside with them but they can't take them off you either unless you let them.

[MPH]

Final solution to the problem: No aircrew=no pax= no security personeel!!!!

We either put up with this nonsens or do something about it!!:E

[verticalhold]

I've stayed away from this thread for some time and am horrified on my return to find that a creature like paarmo is being allowed to post. If he is something to do with Tees then I hope the management there are trying to find out who he is so that they can revoke any security clearance he may have.

Other than the ladies at the handling agents and the ATC staff I have yet to meet any member of staff at Tees who is not downright rude, surly and ignorant.

Our crews dread Tees. A trip through security at that dump just puts everyone into a bad mood for the next few hours. We make Tees reports 30 mins early to cope with the s*** at security so that there is no screaming rush to get the aircraft prepped.

Personally I'd give the place to the French to use as a nuclear test site. Its abaout as friendly as one.

VH

[paarmo]

"creature allowed to post"...........Here I am thinking that this is free speech and a reasonably free society. Don't believe everything you see on this site from amateur detectives. Assume nothing and you will probably be correct.
PS The French wouldn't have us because they are too afraid. We hung a monkey at Hartlepool some years ago thinking it was a Frenchman. If a real Frenchie arrived God knows what would happen.

[Jay Arr]

9/11 plus seven years. Intro of LAGS plus about two years. And you're still posting here?

Not going to work here, guys. You need to write to your CAA, your unions, CHIRPS, etc. Your CAA doesn't consider that there is a problem. That's because you write on PPrune instead of to where it counts. A venting on PPrune may be quick and easy but it achieves nothing. Nothing.

[qwertyplop]

Paarmo - if - as alleged - you are one of those dishing the ****e out to everybody at the airport - then you need to consider that your responses are endemic of the problem people here talk about. If you are one of these security operatives employed privately - then you really are talking out of your backside Sir as you won't be required to enter that circle of knowledge. Very few are in the port environment and certainly no-one working in private security!!

This is a sensitive subject for many on here for a number of reasons - and while it's fair to say that you've been on the arse end of a few unpleasant comments - you've certainly not covered yourself in glory either thus far.

And you failed to answer any of my questions the last time I posted in this thread. Given as I'm one of the few yet to add you to a **** list - perhaps you'd be minded to answer my questions.

What level of security clearance do you have?

Which will inform as to veracity of the answers to the next 2 questions.

Namely - what is the threat?

Who told you?

I'm genuinely interested.

Best,

QP

[numbnut]

I always believed that they did not hang the monkey, they made it into a local school teacher. :)

[paarmo]

Anyone who discusses security clearances is a gobs***e and obviously does not understand how and why they are rated. Everyone should have the security clearance for the role that they are performing at any particular moment in time.
I think the threat is obvious even from non secure sources. Clean skin Islamists who are loosely affiliated to Al Qaida. The problem which is facing the Security Services at the moment is the use of female suicide bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan where the role of the female has always been subservient to that of the male in the Islamist hierachy. They have always been used in the ex Soviet Republics where the roles of men and women have always at least since the Communist Revolution been equal but now because of various reasons this is percolating down to the stricter societies. This causes a problem for UK security which is why I do not feel that the time is right for any relaxation of security controls on airport staff entering the security zone and that includes aircrew.
For the information of Numbnuts they actually made the monkey the Mayor. I kid you not.

[Flintstone]

What a load of waffle. Smoke, mirrors.

I decided long ago that paarmo knows nothing about security. Well, no more than a catering lorry driver needs ;)

Fortunately my exposure to security personnel is limited. Those at my home base are excellent and those down route are, at worst, bearable. It's certainly been a while since I've had to tolerate the jobsworth element. That said the posts here and the latest CHIRP speak of a looming and growing problem that needs dealing with by somebody. CAA won't do it, BALPA aren't interested, BAA won't get involved because all do not want to be seen to be anti-security by the great unwashed who know only what the tabloids feed them.

Had I been subjected to some of the incidents described here and in CHIRP I would be registering a formal complaint with every authority I could think of, the police included. How keen do you think the shaven-headed, tatooed thug will be to frisk you when he's facing a charge of assault that might see him on the sexual offenders register? Job loss, stoning by the other thugs on his estate for being a 'peddofile', reviled by all the other Sun readers...

Someone start the ball* rolling. Please.



*Pun intended :O

[paarmo]

Have you actually read the CHIRP postings? The concensus of opinion is that the searches at airports are at least bearable and nothing to go screaming to a therapist about. ( I would have put psychiatrist instead of therapist but I am not sure how to spell it.)
You really have to face reality. The security searches are here to stay and just like the humble passenger you will have to put up with it.

[qwertyplop]

Paarmo,

I think you'll find that there is no issue with discussing clearances - the MOD even have a open website that goes through the administrative processes for prospective candidates. Please don't call me a gobshi*e Paarmo - it's a reasonable question and not answering it combined with the reaction shown is painting a picture. In fact - your answer shows that you don't understand the question or why I've asked it.

I've concluded - some time ago - that you are a bit confused about these issues.

Oh - and Paarmo - I'm being very polite. :suspect:

[Flintstone]

paarmo.

Have I read CHIRP? No, I think it was 'Heat' magazine hence my reference to the content of the former rather than the latter :rolleyes:

This air of mystique that you seek to create about you does nothing for your credibility and merely creates the impression that you are a non-professional out of his depth. qwertyplop has repeated the questions that you seem determined to avoid, behaviour that reinforces the troll/anorak theory.

Our credentials in this conversation are that we have first hand experience of 'security'. Until I'm convinced that you actually have the same (hanging out with the hedge chimps and writing down registrations doesn't count ;)) I'm joining the others in ignoring you.

[paarmo]

No mention of the central question and withdrawing from the debate.
I think I'll call that a win.
Goodnight and Goodbye.

[The Beer Hunter]

I think that the aircrew here have shown remarkable restraint in dealing with someone (paarmo) pretending to have some insight into the issue of security.

paarmo, you won nothing. They're all ignoring you. As am I.




Click!

[qwertyplop]

Paarmo serves as an example of the stupidity of the UK situation, if he/she is a security operative, then he/she does as he/she is told around the limited information that a private company operating a limited requirement as provided for by the DfT would have available to it. I prefer to rage against the machine.

Paarmo - you've been called and have been found wanting.

For this reason, I don't blame him/her - in fact - I thank him/her. Nothing to get in a sweat about.

It's all about perspective - he has his (nose in front of face) and we have ours (insert cliche of choice).

;)

[call100]

There is nothing secret about screening or training for aviation security.
Check out DFT site for any information regarding banned items/substances.
Department for Transport (http://www.dft.gov.uk/)
Enjoy the read.

[onion]

I have not read the whole thread so this has probably been said before.
Paarmo how can security justify taking small containers of liquid off aircrew, when ATC and fire staff have access to firearms, cutting equipment and the like? I'm not saying there isn't a threat and I'm not saying they shouldn't but lets face it if anyone involved with aviation be it pilots, ATC or fire men wanted to harm anyone or anything what is more likely to be the easiest to do it with, a fire arm or a bottle of cough medicine? Why aren't fire men escorted around by security staff when they are using their cutting equipment? Yet aircrew can't take a bottle of water through security?
Why does food taken from landside to airside by ATC personnel have to be x-rayed, bearing in mind no one can prove what all those doses of radiation will do to the human body. This was rarely the case before the security crisis. Why cannot ATC or fire men for that matter have milk delievered like they use to, instead spending much more on getting it from the shops airside in the terminal? Remember all these personnel don't take these liquids and substances on aircraft.
Unfortunately there are some silly rulings out there, which the terroists are just laughing at all the chaos they caused and how effective they are at turning people who are suppose to be on the same side against each other.
I personally have met security people at airports and not just at the terminal and I can honestly say most are polite and helpful but like in every walk of life you get some that are just bad apples. This though applies to aircrew, ATC and anyone else it just takes one idiot to tarnish everyone and turn professions against each other.

[paarmo]

This post wasn't about overall security but about aircrew disagreeing with the rules to pass through security and feeling that they were above being searched as everyone else is.
Apparently aircrew feel that anyone who qualifies as aircrew is beyond all human weakness and would not smuggle anything on an aircraft which the authorities would not allow. ( I do feel that we are straying too close to the Pope and his doctrine of infallibility here .)
What no one has mentioned on the post as far as I can remember is the fact that as well as British aircrew using our airports there are also aircrew in the loosest possible sense of the word from some very unsavoury nations and private individuals who would not be welcome in this Country but whose friends and associates regularly fly in on private aircraft through commercial airfields.
Where would you draw the line with these people and how could anyone at a security checkpoint actually know ?

[Abusing_the_sky]

I was stung by a bee and it was painful. I got some sting relief from the chemists before i went to work and went through security with the cream in my bag with no problems. Guess Paarmo finished his shift before i went through...:ok:


Rgds,
ATS

[ExSp33db1rd]

#795 Paarmo
............and how could anyone at a security checkpoint actually know ?

Isn't that why I wore a large hat with the company logo on for 40 years ?

Maybe now, instead of drawings of enemy aircraft recognition silhouettes, we should have airline logo recognition for dumb security staff ( sorry - that means all Gestapo - er.. Security Staff, of course )

I'm finally agreeing with everyone else, Paarmo, you just don't understand, and I'm not even staff now - imagine what I have to put up with ?

[Airbus Unplugged]

Apparently aircrew feel that anyone who qualifies as aircrew is beyond all human weakness and would not smuggle anything on an aircraft which the authorities would not allow

You just won't get it will you? You could strip my naked, take all my possessions,frog march me to the plane at gun-point, lock me into the flight deck, and I can STILL be one of the footsoldiers of the Taleban.

Pilots are NOT THE PROBLEM! I've passed every screening and check required. Stop this ridiculous political window dressing and face the fact, you are one of the MAJOR FACTORS adversely affecting FLIGHT SAFETY.

Get it sorted.:ugh:

[Juan Tugoh]

Airbus Unplugged :D

Why can the idiots in security not understand this incredibly simple concept?

The current way that security is enforced in the Uk is more about petty power games than real security - hence Paarmo's nonsense about not discussing clearances - the info is readily available for all to find, as has been demonstrated by several posts. Trouble is that diminishes the power of the self appointed security expert. If you take away their power, all that is left is a self important check out clerk.

These people do not enhance real security, they merely assuage public fear - they provide an appearance of enhanced security so that hopefully the terrorist will go elsewhere. The fools who actually do the checks and think they are very important would be doing pretty much anything else if they had the wit and education to be employed in a job with a future to it. Can you imagine checking pax/crew bags etc for an entire career? No, neither can I.

[qwertyplop]

Guys - sorry to say this but calling people names simply for the job they do is really rather bad form in my opinion. If anyone thinks that this actually helps - then they are mad...!! So come on guys......!! :=

Paarmo's arguments are really rather easy to break down - his/her viewpoint does not take into account any of the factors we've raised here and his/her reluctance to engage constructively upon the fundamentals of the security cycle betray a lack of knowledge that makes his/her appearances here rather jolly affairs to be taken with the pinch of salt.

If Paarmo had any knowledge of the subject, he/she would know that what I've asked for information about is open source and readily available to the public anyway (I don't care what he does - I'd just like to know if he's been through the process at the appropriate level - I can then take what he says seriously) and that's before we get into the issue of securing (or not) supply chains - from source - in and out of airside shops, staff on temp passes and no end of other inponderables that offset a stupidly rigid and inflexible regime of access control through one landside/airside barrier. That's the stupidity of this state of affairs - not Paarmo. He/she is symptomatic of a greater malaise in my opinion.

And the coup de grace (?)- Paarmo's little rant about GA. He/she simply does not know what he/she is talking about. As we all know - no-one from law enforcement bothers to look at GA in and out of the UK now do they.............:rolleyes:

GAR's, flight plannning et al. And no-one checks the GAR's do they or turns out to meet such flights if there's an issue. More importantly, this has absolutley nothing to do with a private security operative operating a barrier at an airport. Yet more evidence of a lack of basic knowledge of airfield operations.

Why would a crim fly in and out of a designated port when they could land in any number of airfields that are listed in Pooley's for example? And it's fair to assume, IMO, that these are looked at too by people from HM Govt's security forces who are required/trained to look at the issue rather than anyone operating a barrier for a private company operating the aforementioned security barrier within an airport.

I'm all for Paarmo to keep going on about this because the lack of knowledge and detail is what undoes the viewpoint. Utter flaming twaddle yet intriguing all the same.

[Romeo India Xray]

I also used to be entertained by the rantings of Paarmo however the entertainment value was quick to ebb when none of my questions were replied to. I was then introduced to the benefits of the ignore button.

As for GA, I am sure there is a security threat, but equally sure that it is no greater than the safety threat that was posed when a friend had his medication stolen by the idiots (that is a collective "idiots" as it is management who are ultimately accountable). The solution is to ban all GA, ban all training flights, ban all corporate flights, ban all military flights - I am sure this would appease Paarmo. What then? The current pilot pool would be very rapidly exhausted, flights would be cancelled or ticket prices would rise as the existing crews adjusted to being back where they used to be on the supply and demand curve. In addition businesses would suffer, recreational pilots basic rights to fly would be breached and Paarmo could live in his safe little utopia right up to the point where flights were being cancelled due to lack of crew (which would eventually force all airlines to close).

Now isn't that a utopian world for Paarmo to live in. Let's abolish aviation and go back over 100 years.

Paarmo, government, management and security operatives should learn to accept the fact that their smokescreen is simply an ornament which joe public can look at and feel safe (and/or violated). Why dont they consider security measures on the London Tube network? The London bus network? Security, what security? The asylum is now being run by the lunatics :ugh:

RIX

[Check Mags On]

Paarmo's post at 00:09 on the Durham Tees Valley thread.

PS I haven't been around for a while I have been in another part of the forum causing absolute mayhem with people who take themselves far too seriously and have no sense of humour, are thin skinned and do not understand irony. ( Infamy Infamy they've all got it in for me. )



My favourite security incident.
Me in uniform and quite happily beeing patted down, I had set off the scanner.
Airport security person (not police or SB but same uniform as rest)
comes through behind me, and sets off the scanner.
They walked straight past the other security people.
I then asked why they had not been searched.
The reply was that they had a security pass and had been vetted.
So there was no requirement to.
They had a pass issued by DTV airport, no other pass eg the ones SB and armed police have.
I stood there wondering why I only had a BAA pass and thinking how do I get a supper duper pass from DTV. (Paarmo for your benefit I'm being ironic):ok:

And before anyone jumps down my throat, this was an exception as many times I have witnessed airport security there being checked themselves.
They are also polite and friendly. In my view anyway.

[qwertyplop]

Seen this many times myself - security appear to exempt from security. I've taken to logging these and reporting them to my older's and better's. I'd recommend you all do as well.

And this highlights why I ask what level of vetting has taken place.

Paarmo - still waiting for an answer to my humourless and ironic questions.

[S78]

On a similar subject, a few months ago I left my local airport via one of the staff gates and was asked by security if I could retrieve their golf ball for them:bored:

They had been playing with it during a quiet spell and it had rolled about 15 feet (still in their view) out of the RZ...... and they didn't want to retrieve it because one of their number would have to pass back through security again:ugh:




S78

[paarmo]

Not all people contributing to this post have been pilots. Some are described simply as aircrew. Please define aircrew and why after two weeks training and a verified work history which is not always checked with the thoroughness which the public think that it is they are deemed to be in a position to bypass the checks which have so far prevented another 9/11 or similar.
I thought I was on everyone's ignore button so why are you all circling like sharks waiting for your turn to bite ?.

[S78]

And there was me thinking the 9/11 perps were passengers:hmm:





S78

[Dont Hang Up]

'...so why are you all circling like sharks waiting for your turn to bite ?.'

I think it's because you insist on dangling your toes in water that's too deep for you.

[Bruce Wayne]

paarmo: Please define aircrew and why after two weeks training and a verified work history which is not always checked with the thoroughness which the public think that it is they are deemed to be in a position to bypass the checks which have so far prevented another 9/11 or similar.


are you being deliberately obtuse or just can't grasp the concept of the facts posted.

paarmo: I thought I was on everyone's ignore button so why are you all circling like sharks waiting for your turn to bite ?.

ahh! so you are just chumming the water!


No mention of the central question and withdrawing from the debate.
I think I'll call that a win.
Goodnight and Goodbye.


so you are not calling it win?

[brakedwell]

Bruce Wayne

Quote Paarmo:

Goodnight and Goodbye.

Promise Paarmo? Then goodbye and good riddance. :D:D:D

[qwertyplop]

Paarmo - are you ignoring me? That's ironic. :)

[qwertyplop]

Paarmo said

'to bypass the checks which have so far prevented another 9/11 or similar.'

I really must take issue with this.

Absolute twaddle Paarmo - I'd like you to tell us the details of the plots/attacks you are referring to. Private operatives have prevented nothing - HM security forces do that work not a barrier technician. I concede that there have been such occurances in the Middle East but these do not relate to anything in an airport based scenario.

When will you understand Paarmo that UK based private operatives contribute nothing to the The War Against Terror. I feel no affinity with those who do this work at an airport - I see them as a barrier to effective engagement across the airside community.

The acronym for this war is T.W.A.T I believe Paarmo. :hmm:

[non iron]

A few months ago l left an aircraft on stand (as operating flight deck crew) and had to position as a pax to continue duty elsewhere.
Plainly in uniform.
ln security l was seen holding a boarding card and instructed to remove my l.D. since l was now a passenger ( l can only assume that l was allowed the clothes because the alternative would be too gruesome to contemplate )
There were three channels in use and l noticed that no one was required to remove their shoes.
" Belt and shoes off " no please, but ok.
On getting dressed a business type siddled over to ask why l was the only one required to do that.
"Because they are t@@ts" l said," but if l told them that l would get arrested "
He walked off muttering " l thought so "
From my point of view that is a major problem in the UK, l`ve not seen it anywhere else.
ln fact l regard the self stoking, rapidly expanding security industry as a hindrance to flight safety, but that`s another story.

[non iron]

In the wake of 9/11 l made a uk internal flight carrying an overnight bag with nothing checked in, l suppose you could call it a flying visit.
My toilet bag was extracted and embarrassment started, how stupid could l be forgetting to check the contents ? l did feel bad.
First out was the electric toothbrush with it`s one inch hardened spike, the polite and efficient security officer looked at it then at me and recognising my " 30 quid down the bog" expression, bless him, put it back.
He brightened with his next find, the nail clippers with that little filey thing hiding under the handle. As he had to, into the bin it went.
l do not blame him.
l replaced it from the chemist 20yds inside security.
An odd thing, l believe l am right in saying that no American airline banned metal cutlery at any time after 9/11. And booze for commercial profit in glass bottles has always been available airside.
Now, l am getting on a bit, but is it me ? Have l missed something ?

Ps, has anybody else coughed at waiting for airside shop stocks of water to go through the x-ray machine whilst their cheaper but still sealed bottle is binned.
lt must be me.

Pps. My Steward accidentally left his passport on board during a day stop in France this week. On return the expected glitch ( despite ID and plainly crew membership) resulted in a slight delay and police presence to the aircraft. The armed one had the grace to smile when l stopped him entering to check HIS credentials.
Ah, it is me.

[Nashers]

i have been reading the thread for a while now and as a few have said, there are some muppets on here.

let me tell you a bit about myself. i work in security.

now before you all start pulling crash axes out for me, i work in night clubs but with many of the same people who do day work at heathrow or any other of the main UK airports. oh, and im also a pilot albiet still in training (hopefully in 3 weeks have my IR done).

there are alot of people who ive worked with every weekend when im in the clubs that are smart well educated guys who run their own business or are in some form of skilled job. these range from IT consultants, actors trying to get onto tv, to even one guy who works on the trading floor of a finance bank within the square mile. lets call this group 1

there are also alot of people who work the clubs during the nights, then are in day security. they eat sleep and talk security and all they know about is their SIA badge. they could be event staff, static guards, site security or even airport security. lets call this group 2

ive been working in clubs for about four and a half years now. two and a half years in management and two years as door staff, so have worked with a good few people. there is a HUGE difference in attitudes door staff show customers, depending which group they come out from.

Group 1 door staff are generaly more polite, relaxed and make better judgements about customers either coming in or if we have to remove them. they use their head and make a good decission and will let some stuff slip inorder to keep the peace. at the end of the day the guys on the front door dont want an ear ache just because someone tripped up on the stairs and doorstaff think they are hammered when they are not.

Group 2 door staff just see black and white. everything has to be either or. there is no grey area as this is what they have be told/ trained. when something happens out of the normal they are the ones screaming down the radios sounding like they have never seen a fight before. they are the ones who talk down to customers and basicaly wind them up, they are the ones who normaly get complaints (plenty of experiance of this when i was management and all for stupid little things), they are the ones who tend to cause more trouble than two guys fighting over a knocked over drink.

and guess what. at the end of the night when having a meeting or a drink, group 1 door staff talk together and group 2 door staff are on the other sofa. ofcourse its not fully seperate but one can feel the attitudes in the air. they all get on well but at the end of the day there is a different intelectual level in the conversations you can have between one group and another.

i agree with what pilots have to say about security as i do believe there is way too much stupidity and way too little common sence used. policies have been issued on knee jerk reactions by people who dont have a clue what they are talking about and just want to look like they are doing somthing in the public eye. the same policies are then inforced by people who cannot comprehend anything that falls inbetween the lines.

thats my two cents anyway. however if anyone out there is looking for a fresh young pilot any time soon give me a shout!!!

[non iron]

With the best will in the world mate flight crew are not customers.
Somebody buys a ticket and they ( we ) action it.
It`s the poo in between that needs sorting.

Are you related to that posh bloke with the fiddle who gives it "gor blimey guv", Nigel Kennedy ?
You know nothing.
As bad as the trolls. What`s worse l bit, l feel embarrassed after reading your previous posts.
Time for bed.

[phil795]

Well after reading your rant thank god I'm not travelling on your bus.

[phil795]

Well all I can say to you is that your not often right but your wrong again. Control authorities ie, police, customs and immigration officers are not exempt security screening procedures. They are subject to the normal screening as passengers and of course pilots and aircrew. The only exception to this is an armed police officer carrying a weapon, asp or gas cannister. So, in future before putting your thoughts to pen please make sure you know what your talking about. Oh by the way, I am one of those dreaded security officers at my local airport and have searched many of our fine uniformed friends without any drama.

[Romeo India Xray]

Im afraid I cant agree with your comments about Nashers as I can draw the analogy from previous experience. In a previous life I was a licensee and thus worked very closely with door-staff. From there I moved into professional aviation via security management.

In the pubs it was easy to get a high quality door person as there is a certain alure of having a free night out and socialising whilst being paid. The intellect of these individuals was higher than the static officers we recruited when I was a security manager. The reason being that no one really wants to work in a drab job with very few development possibilities. I believe this is the same problem now faced by you guys in the UK.

On the face of it you have some rather draconian rules made as a knee jerk reaction, being implemented by a percentage of operatives who have no ability to conduct themselves interpersonally. Said individuals are underpaid, under-developed and as thus are at the very bottom of the job market food chain. I dont think I would be sweetness and light if I were in their shoes either.

What I truly believe is needed is nationwide accountability and audit of airport security. There should be a level playing field with sensible measures for both public and flight crew (with flight crew not being prevented from going to work in the manner that they would be able to were they not an airside worker (i.e. with a packed lunch or overnight toiletries)).

RIX

[3Greens]

whilst they were in the process of removing several areas of seating in MAN T3 to install a Boots; i had was in the queue behind several of the workmen. They were putting panel saws, screwdrivers and chisels and everyother item you would normally need to build with through the x-ray machine. (quite why they needed to x-ray a saw is beyond me though- what did they expect to find?). Anyway i passed through straight after in uniform and promptly had my bottled water nicked that i had forgotten about form last flight.
I couldn't help but think something was drastically wrong when several builder types with all kinds of dangerous tools were alowed through whilst i had some water pinched.

[FLAP5]

I also have been reading this thread for a while, and thought I would add my piece. I was passing through xxx airport in the northern part of a large island on the western extremity of the British Isles a few months ago as positioning flight deck crew in uniform. My Parker pen had run out on the previous sector, so I bought a pack of refills at WH Smiths at the airport. They only sold packs of two. I put one in my pen and the other in my flight bag. Well, security searched my bag and told me that the refill in my bag was not permitted as it was deemed that it could be used as a weapon. I was however allowed to take the one that I had just put in my pen!!!! Another incident was whilst travelling as a passenger with my family. My 18 month old daughters favourite fork was removed as it was deemed also to be a lethal weapon. Having passed security ( a fork down) we ate at the airside restaurant where metal knifes and forks were in abundance. I took a knife and fork back down to security to try and show them how ridiculous the whole situation was, and reclaim daughters miniscule plastic/metal fork. You guessed it...they could not see how stupid the whole situation was and threatened to have me taken off my flight. I ceded after my wife told me to leave it alone as we would miss our flight.
Muppets...:ugh:

[Bruce Wayne]

was in the queue behind several of the workmen. They were putting panel saws, screwdrivers and chisels and everyother item you would normally need to build with through the x-ray machine

That's about on par with another poster (in this thread or another) who witnessed security pass the firearms of armed police through the X-ray.:ugh:

[brakedwell]

I am reminded of a story Peter Ustinov's told about passing through Cairo Airport when he was making Murder on the Nile. The UK had just donated a large sum to improve security at the airport. While P.U was waiting in line to be screened he noticed the wire to the (silent) screening wand was not plugged into the wall socket. When his turn came to be processed he turned his head away and did an imitation of a high pitched beep. The security guard jumped back in amazement and stared at his wand in disbelief ! Not a lot has changed since then . . . . has it?

[alwayzinit]

So we can conclude that:

a) Pilots are a special case( the birthday suit argument):E

b) Being a special case does not mean that pilots are arrogant, just perceived that way!:ok:

c) No airport security can be 100% and is primarily for "show".:eek:

d) Irony is totally lost on "security"staff, as is deodourant/mouthwash:\

e) If you want to totally screw up something important get public employees and a commitee involved leave to simmer/debate and total dogs breakfast will appear.........................whatever country you live in:ugh:

Ok did I miss anything?

Alwayz

ps sorry for the "smiley"frenzy couldn't stop once I started..........

[Xeque]

How about setting up a website to name and shame these unsavoury security operatives wherever they are - UK, USA particularly.
It could be a sort of 'Darwin Awards' specifically for security goons who've lost the plot.
When confronted with an extraordinary example of Airport Security insanity, victims can quickly use their mobile phones to take a photo of the 'clown' making sure to include his/her/it's security pass in the photo so that the 'goon' can be properly identified before posting their identity and the details of the stupidity perpetrated on the website, using a hotspot in the departure lounge to speed the process.
The website could be called CRETINS - Creeps and Retards Employed to Thwart Innocent and Normal Souls
Feel free to add your own nemonics.

[qwertyplop]

phil795 said

Well all I can say to you is that your not often right but your wrong again. Control authorities ie, police, customs and immigration officers are not exempt security screening procedures. They are subject to the normal screening as passengers and of course pilots and aircrew. The only exception to this is an armed police officer carrying a weapon, asp or gas cannister. So, in future before putting your thoughts to pen please make sure you know what your talking about. Oh by the way, I am one of those dreaded security officers at my local airport and have searched many of our fine uniformed friends without any drama.

That's rich - I have a chum who is with one of the control authorities and he says you are tolerated because they've been told to set an example and comply with the DfT rules - not your requests.

Nothing more.

They can claim to be on a 'job' and pass through without hindrance. I think you need to understand that before you comment and why they are doing you the courtesy of presenting themselves for the security operative on arrival for duty.

A look at the back of your pass will say who YOU need to present that pass to on demand. They have a right of admission with or without the airport pass - a little look at their primary legislation be they police, customs or immigration officers, holding a crown warrant, will clear that issue up if you are confused.

And that's why YOU are subject to their control..............not the other way around.

[Abusing_the_sky]

Xeque: what a brilliant idea!:ok:

If you ever set up this website ( i am not a computer wizard unfortunately), PM me the address. I also would like to nominate paarmo as the websites main picture!:E


Rgds,
ATS


To Paarmo: no love, i haven't read your posts, you're still on my ignore list, but judging from the replies you get from the other posters, you're still talking (rather typing) a load of $hit

[Ladusvala]

Phil795 I´m dissapointed that you didn´t answer the questions, 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 Phil795, 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.

[ExSp33db1rd]

Same breed as one who, even before 9/11 and the present madness, told me that my Aircrew pass denied me access to the aircraft from the 1st floor of the terminal, which was reserved for Ground staff pass holders, and that I had to go to the ground floor exit. I did that and then walked back from the aircraft and harangued him from the other side.

Or one that removed the Flt. Engineers Swiss Army penknife - without which no aircraft will ever fly - and when asked if she was stealing it declared that she would bring it out to the aircraft ( again before the present rules ) and give it to the Captain.

The Inmates are truly running the Asylum.

[rsuggitt]

"do you really believe that a terrorist will pressure a pilot to smuggle a swiss army knife for them? "

Well I dont know what Phil believes, but I believe this could happen. I can imagine a terrorist attempting to coerce flight crew, or impersonate flight crew.

[pilotbear]

and do what then exactly?:ugh:

[brakedwell]

Well I dont know what Phil believes, but I believe this could happen. I can imagine a terrorist attempting to coerce flight crew, or impersonate flight crew.

A terrorist would find it far easier to coerce a "friendly" airside shop assistant into supplying him with nail cutters, scissors or other dangerous weapons.

[autobrake3]

It is accepted at my London base that as a Captain, a Swiss Army Knife or a Leatherman is a necessary tool of my trade. I carry a Leatherman every working day through security no questions asked. It would be confiscated at any other BAA airport, confirming that they have no overall policy even within the same company.

[countdownconundrum]

Is that STN?

[rsuggitt]

"
Quote:
Well I dont know what Phil believes, but I believe this could happen. I can imagine a terrorist attempting to coerce flight crew, or impersonate flight crew.
A terrorist would find it far easier to coerce a "friendly" airside shop assistant into supplying him with nail cutters, scissors or other dangerous weapons."

Yup, that's another way. The sad fact is, there are lots of ways a terrorist might attempt to launch an attack.

[AMEandPPL]

The bottles are made of glass, and a terrorist can easily take one, break it, and have a lethal weapon

I've thought exactly this for YEARS ! So just why does it happen ?
Because selling the bottles makes MONEY ! Either for the airport company if sold in airside outlets, or the airline itself if sold on board.

Who gives a toss about security ? So long as the shareholders' profits continue to increase . . . . . . . . . ! Grrrrr . . . . . .

[S78]

To take Rsuggitt's argument to it's logical conclusion:

How about coercing the local security staff? Having seen our local lot (ICTS) on site I'd say that most come from areas where anti - Western sentiment may well be rife amongst the local community.


Or failing that why not just chuck something over the fence for an airside driver to pick up later?




S78

[rsuggitt]

"To take Rsuggitt's argument to it's logical conclusion:"

Yup, there are a lot of things to guard against.

[Ladusvala]

Rsuggitt...I can no longer take you seriously.

[42psi]

Rsuggitt ... you cannot be for real :confused:


Why bother "persuading" staff either flight crew or ground staff, or trying to smuggle anything past the eagle eyed security staff......

anyone who works on an airfield knows none of that is needed ....


which is doubly why the current restrictions on what happens to staff and what can be taken through security is pointless and simply window dressing :mad:

[Bruce Wayne]

It seems the point we have arrived at is that for cockpit crew being padded down, having to remove shoes, belt and have nail clippers/leatherman/water/mini-mag light (or insert other item of choice here) confiscated as being a threat to the safety of an aircraft when they are in control of the aircraft even have items like a crash axe to hand in the cockpit is moot, when ground staff, as we have seen don't even have rudimentary background checks if they are foreign nationals.

Any terminal ground staff from the cleaning crew to shop assistants could be a foreign national *with* sympathetic links or ideologies toward militant groups and can/could get employment and have access to the swiss cheese of holes in airport security.

Yet, the very people who have as their tools of their trade, being the aircraft, under their control are subjected to security policies that have no policy. Or even intelligence!

Bear in mind that the flight crew has been subjected to company, airport and law enforcement checks, where even a conviction for drink driving would affect their job. Yet an unskilled foreign national that has frequented a training camp in northern Pakistan wouldn't have any problem in gaining and maintaining access to the swiss cheese of holes.

So yes, it is a frustrating situation.

In reference to the point about a flight crew being coerced. That point is moot.

In reference to the point about the availability of glass bottled duty free being available for purchase airside... The Ethiopian Airlines 767 that ditched at the Comoros Islands, running out of fuel after a hijack, was hijacked by people who used a bottle of Jack Daniels purchased at duty free as the weapon. THAT was in 1996. Prior to 2001 that was the highest fatality hijack event.

[chrisbl]

The biggest threat to passengers is having a load of wannabes up in the flight deck, upto the eyeballs in debt and no way to get out of it.

Sometime someone will crack and it will be nasty, pilots are only human after all.

If they were saints the security screening whilst testing the paitience of a saint, would not be an issue.

[el #]

Everyone could ask himself, if asked to suggest a change in policy, what would you recommend ?

Eliminate security check for air crew altogether ? Or for pilots only ?
Then said groups could not embark together with pax anymore as the public would not react well to that.

For sure I would to return to pre-9/11 and UK bombings rules for allowed items. I do not really see how binning nailclippers and water makes things more secure.
Then again, it would be shops selling the same items airside to complain...

In a way I'm afraid we're stuck with the present system and nothing can change it. Of course, intelligent cooperation by the security toward aircrew would save a lot of personal aggravation and true damage to business, like the issue said before with repair tools, etc.

Brian Wayne, you say very well, but possibly is better not to bring much attention to works that has airside access or worst to the a/c. The only result could be introduction of security searches for them too.

[ExSp33db1rd]

There are two ways of looking at everything.

The early hihackings only really inconvenienced everyone, not many deaths, just the odd nightstop in Cuba ( or Dawsons Field, where they torched 3 empty aircraft ) but since 9/11 the picture has changed, and now if subject to a hijack one might as well consider oneself dead, being an unwilling suicide bomber, so why not have a go at the terrorists, like those on board the 4th aircraft in 9/11 did, those passengers were just as dead in a Maryland field as if they had been embedded against the walls of the White House – if that was the target, and they prevented a worse tragedy.

So – instead of removing nail clippers and Swiss Army knives from passengers, why don’t we GIVE every passenger a Swiss Army knife ? If 400 knife bearing passengers rise up and attack the hijackers, what chance success for either party ?

Even if the pax. fail to get superority, the aircraft might crash, or blow up, short of the target, as the Maryland one did, and if one is undoubtedly going to lose ones’ life anyway – why not, and if a few pax, or a few hijackers die, but the primary objective is thwarted, isn't that better than a total disaster against a defenceless target ? And who knows, once the hijackers have been killed there might actually be someone on board who could get the aircraft down somewhere in less then a dozen pieces and save at least some lives ?

As we are on the brink of World War III anyway ............Just a thought ! :E

[rsuggitt]

"Rsuggitt...I can no longer take you seriously."

Why not? All I'm saying is that I recognise there are a lot of potential threats.

[fireflybob]

So – instead of removing nail clippers and Swiss Army knives from passengers, why don’t we GIVE every passenger a Swiss Army knife ? If 400 knife bearing passengers rise up and attack the hijackers, what chance success for either party ?

Even if the pax. fail to get superority, the aircraft might crash, or blow up, short of the target, as the Maryland one did, and if one is undoubtedly going to lose ones’ life anyway – why not, and if a few pax, or a few hijackers die, but the primary objective is thwarted, isn't that better than a total disaster against a defenceless target ? And who knows, once the hijackers have been killed there might actually be someone on board who could get the aircraft down somewhere in less then a dozen pieces and save at least some lives ?

As we are on the brink of World War III anyway ............Just a thought !

Or why not do what El Al started doing in the 1970s? They put skyguards on their aircraft and said that if anyone attempted to hijack the a/c they would be shot by them. There was an attempted hijack during flight during the 1970s (I believe the a/c landed at Heathrow) and they did precisely what they said they would do. Miraculously they don't seemed to have had any further hijack attempts. Ok yes they have other security procedures including (surprise, surprise!) the profiling of "suspicuous passengers!

[brakedwell]

Ok yes they have other security procedures including (surprise, surprise!) the profiling of "suspicuous passengers!

Tut Tut fireflybob, that would be politically incorrect and racist. :eek:

[Ladusvala]

Rsuggitt, I can no longer take you seriously because you claim to believe that terrorists could coerce a pilot to smuggle a swiss army knife for them.

Sure, it´s possible but since there´s much easier and more efficient ways of obtaining a knife, once airside, you are obviously not discussing the issue in a serious way.
It´s much more likely that terrorists will coerce a pilot into unlocking the flight deck door for them. Airport security doesn´t do anything to prevent that.

Basically anything is possible but that doesn´t necessarily mean that it´s very likely to happend, I could be struck by lightning at exactly the same time that you too are struck by lightning...

I.e. terrorists are not likely to coerce a pilot to smuggle a swiss army knife for them, it´s more likely that they will coerce a pilot to smuggle a pistol for them. That´s why I mean that security should only screen pilots for items like guns and bombs, not nailclippers and water (which the terrorists can smuggle themselves, deciliter by deciliter).

[ExSp33db1rd]

Tut Tut fireflybob, that would be politically incorrect and racist. :eek:


Precisely..

[rsuggitt]

"Rsuggitt, I can no longer take you seriously because you claim to believe that terrorists could coerce a pilot to smuggle a swiss army knife for them."

I'm afraid that the lack-of-taking-seriously is mutual, because you do not appear to be able to read properly.

While I did say that I saw coercion as being a possible threat, I said nothing about the nature of the coercion in general or swiss army knives in particular. Where did you get that from I wonder. If you want to discuss the issue with me, I suggest you refer to the things I actually said, not the things you made up.

[fireflybob]

Slightly off thread but I thought this was interesting!

Black air passenger awarded £4,000 after being stopped three times before flight (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2552543/Black-air-passenger-awarded-4000-after-being-stopped-three-times-before-flight.html)

[Johnny767]

Racist, my favorite term.

I am all for "Racial Profiling," except here in Canada all the minimum wage, security goof-balls, are immigrants.

Only certain segments of society are forbidden from being Racist!

Funny how I fly to Japan and get refused service in some restaurants...:"Nippon Only."

I'd love to see a restaurant in Europe or North America toss a customer out for race?

[Dairyground]

Re post #843

And who knows, once the hijackers have been killed there might actually be someone on board who could get the aircraft down somewhere in less then a dozen pieces and save at least some lives ?

Possibly all you would need is someone able to carry on a radio conversation, accept simple instructions, and set up autoland.

On the perennial question of water, there was a report several pages back that empty bottles went through the scanner without doing more than puzzling the operators, and could then be filled with anything one chose (including tap water) once airside. If you must take your own water on board, be green and re-use the bottles.

[ExSp33db1rd]

Dairyground - Water

My wife always does that, finding the dubious sanctity of the toilet taps, or frequently sucked water fountains, preferable to the rank taste of the water from the When-Were-They-Last-Cleaned aircraft tanks, but it wouldn't take much imagination for a team of low-lifes to provide a supply of Heavy Water on the other side and then manufacture a Nuke on board ! Just what is the point of not being allowed to take a new, unsealed, bottle of Evian Water - or similar - on board, or an unopened Coke can. Inmates running the Asylum - again.

[el #]

ExSp33db1rd, sure you can bring on board any drink you like. It's just that you've to buy it after security where they cost more.
So the shop guys make a buck, that is not so crazy :)

[ExSp33db1rd]

You mean buy water ? It's more expensive than petrol in Airport shops !

The wholepoint of this thread is to highlight the total idiocy of the way everybody, and crew in particular, are being treated by airport security staff Worldwide. It's a whole new culture of power and intimidation for absolutely minimal cost effectiveness, we all know that the bad boys will do precisely what they want, when they want to do it. Cabin crew particularly should be armed in some way, not disarmed, so that they might at least have a chance to thwart an attack - difficult for pax. to get organised however heroic they might be.

I might accept the concept of heightened security if it weren't for the brainless way it is being applied.

Sorry, I may be bigotted, but it's not negotiable.

[Ron & Edna Johns]

El #, not completely true. As we know, after you've passed through security at many airports you'll have the opportunity to purchase duty-free, bottles of water, coffee, etc. For Australia-bound flights, where Australia is the immediate next stop (eg, a flight leaving from HKG bound for SYD), you'll have such purchases confiscated at a secondary screening point set up on the aerobridge itself. And the same process applies to crew! Flight planning on the aircraft with a Starbucks now? Don't even think about it....

Yeah, the guy in the shop makes a buck and you end up with nothing!

Australia's lunatics, sitting in the asylum boardroom, running the "war on terror" :ugh::yuk:

[Xeque]

There is a piece about Shanghai and the Olympic Games in today's on-line Telegraph. Towards the end it explains how the Chinese Airport security staff deal with items that have been confiscated.
It seems that all such items taken at Departures are placed in big boxes at Arrivals so that pax and crew arriving back into China can reclaim items similar to those taken from them at no financial loss to themselves.
It doesn't say how high value items such as expensive perfumes and aftershaves are dealt with.
What an excellent idea. It would certainly help to dispel my nagging worry that items 'stolen' from law abiding folk at UK airports end up on the shelves of the local 'open all hours' thereby supplementing the income of the Security goons.
Here in the UK a receipt should be given for high value items so that they can be claimed back later from the Security company or the airport operator.

[brakedwell]

Here in the UK a receipt should be given for high value items so that they can be claimed back later from the Security company or the airport operator.

They won't do that because it won't make them any :mad: money!

[non iron]

Are you for real ?Plainly what`s needed is more pub bouncers regulating crew movement.One of your colleauges sent a private message asking " which side of the fence are you on ?"There is no fence, just commercial profit with aviation these days and how to increase it.And yes, crew members are a special case.l nearly quit the latest time of having my collar felt inside - literally - with latex gloves and being asked to sign to say that "l`d been done".The pat on the arse and " take that out" - obviously no please - revealed my freshly laundered hanky.Still in the crucifix stance coudn`t resist saying "would you like me to show you how it works ?"We have various gangs of drunks on board, flight safety ? forget that, some tart of a clerk needs to move `em on out of their area of responsibility.One of the few things l`m sure of is the next wave of terrorists will not be in the queue at check in.Ps. "l`d been done." lt was a pax list, so l scribbled out the bits that didn`t apply. lntake of breath all round. Ars***s.

[non iron]

Xeque. l`m going outside now and l maybe sometime.

[non iron]

Wash your mouth out !Profiling ?

[Nashers]

non iron you have a few storys about how security have treated you on here which make it quite clear you do not agree with the way things are done currently. you even state you nearly quit once.my first post is that i AGREE with you guys the pilots. i stated that in my private message to you albiet i am door staff in clubs which helps pay my daily expences while i finish of my IR rating, i believe that static guards, like they have in the airports are not good at their jobs. i fly frequently for the family business as well and have experianced airport security first hand myself many times.it seems to me that you have have not fully read or understood my first post. either that or you are not agreeing with what i have said, only to end up saying the same thing in different words. how am i a troll for stating what i had said? finaly in your reply to my private message you still have not answered my question or what you dont agree with from my first post.

[Ladusvala]

Rsuggitt, in post #827 I asked Phil795 a question which you answered in post #829.

Quote of post "829:
"do you really believe that a terrorist will pressure a pilot to smuggle a swiss army knife for them? "

Well I dont know what Phil believes, but I believe this could happen. I can imagine a terrorist attempting to coerce flight crew, or impersonate flight crew."
End of quote.

The question was about terrorists pressuring a pilot to smuggle a swiss army knife for them, right?
You answered: "I believe this could happen", right?

Please, don´t accuse me of making things up.

As I can´t se any misunderstanding on my part, could you please clarify your answer and possibly regain me taking you seriously:
Do you believe that terrorists could coerce a pilot to smuggle a swiss army knife for them or not?
Do you think that security should screen pilots for swiss army knives and confiscate them?

[aeroplane007]

The bottom line is that since the Wright Bros no pilot has carried anything on board against his will (as suggested) that resulted in the downing of an aircraft.

If you keep frisking/treating pilots like they are Bin Ladens you could build:bored: a problem, like Jack Nicholson in 'Who Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest'.

Don't create a problem where there is not one.

[sussex2]

What about those pax who fly a lot, are worldly wise and would do nothing to endanger the lives of others; some no doubt taking more flights per month than any pilot.
Should they be given an exemption?
Once you start where do you stop?

[Flintstone]

What about those pax who fly a lot, are worldly wise and would do nothing to endanger the lives of others; some no doubt taking more flights per month than any pilot.
Should they be given an exemption?
Once you start where do you stop?


I believe the discussion is about aircrew who have been screened many times in order to obtain their jobs, airport passes and the like. Nobody is suggesting we start asking for preferential treatment for passengers :rolleyes:

There's a faction on PPRuNe that advocate allowing professionals only in here and frankly a post like that just adds grist to their mill.

[rsuggitt]

Well I have egg on my face, a faulty memory, and so I apologise.Here's what I think.... I think that terrorists may coerce aircrew to take dangerous items through security. Also that terrorists may attempt to impersonate aircrew with the same objective, and more.Said items may be anything that can be used to endanger people, aircraft, other vehicles, and buildings; I include things like weapons and explosives. A penknife (Swiss Army or otherwise) can be used as a lethal weapon.

[S78]

rsuggitt or any of the other security apologists can answer this one.....


Why not just test said liquids for explosives or the component parts (even ICTS have the equipment to do this) and let it through if its negative?


Cut down on a lot of the frustration casued by removing all liquids from crew which exceed 100ml.



S78

[ExSp33db1rd]

I see nobody has objected to my suggestion that we GIVE all the pax. a Swiss Army knife, all the better to succeed with an uprising, or ensure that the cabin crew have something better than plastic cutlery to attack a terrorist with ? although a plastic fork broken off in the eyeball might have some effect. I guess even bashing them over the head with an ice bucket might achieve something. I think we are more or less agreed that firearms are difficult to get aboard now, even the dimmest Gestopa agent should be able to tell the difference between a pair of nail clippers and a Luger pistol, so physical contact might be possible, even if you just kick then in the b***s. Remember - I'm supposing that the crew and pax are convinced that death is inevitable, so they could have a go with anything, what is there to lose - just make sure they have something better than a wet bus ticket.

The comment that El Al carry an armed guard - and have succesfully thwarted future hi-jackings - hasn't aroused comment either.

[brakedwell]

The comment that El Al carry an armed guard - and have succesfully thwarted future hi-jackings - hasn't aroused comment either.

Can you imagine the number of accidental on board discharges courtesy of the morons who are bound to be recruited by the UK "powers that be".

[rsuggitt]

"Why not just test said liquids for explosives or the component parts (even ICTS have the equipment to do this) and let it through if its negative?"In a nutshell... time, I think.

[brakedwell]

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

If you are driving the damn thing why should you need to blow it up?

[rsuggitt]

"The comment that El Al carry an armed guard - and have succesfully thwarted future hi-jackings - hasn't aroused comment either."That might stop a hijacker (though maybe not if there was more than one) but it probably would not stop a bomber.

[rsuggitt]

"If you are driving the damn thing why should you need to blow it up?"A real, honest, legitimate pilot probably wont want to blow up a plane.And a real, honest, legitimate pilot who wanted to destroy a plane could of course fly it into the ground.My discussion is about a pilot who is coerced to carry something airside that someone else (ee another terrorist) could use, or someone masquerading as a pilot or other aircrew in order to get airside.

[brakedwell]

I say again, a terrorist would find it much safer and easier to coerce a "sympathetic" airside shop assistant into carrying "something" airside. I imagine re-stocking the airside shops offers all sorts of possibilities. And tell me rsuggit, why would a real, honest, legitimate pilot want to destroy a plane?

[call100]

I can remember something from the 70's something about a KLM catering manager having his family held/threatened forcing him to hide weapons on board an aircraft.
So all this is nothing new.
Why do we have a huge thread on this and no one doing anything about it??
It's all a real pain, but, I think it's going to be around for a long while. Unless everyone is prepared to join together in an organised way then there is little hope of any improvement.

[rsuggitt]

"I say again, a terrorist would find it much safer and easier to coerce a "sympathetic" airside shop assistant into carrying "something" airside. I imagine re-stocking the airside shops offers all sorts of possibilities. "True, but I can envisage all sorts of difficulites in passing the object (whatever it was) to the terrorist in such a way as to avoid suspicion and detection. It also adds complication in that you need to recruit an extra person, with it's risks of intelligence-based detection.The reality is though that (as far as I am aware) no attacks have been attempted on an aircraft by getting an airside employee to pass on some object or other. All the attacks that I know of have involved individuals using material or objects that they carried through security."And tell me rsuggit, why would a real, honest, legitimate pilot want to destroy a plane?"TBH, they probably wouldnt, but I was agreeing with everyone who has pointed out that a pilot intent on carnage doesnt need to carry anything on the plane except his skills.

[S78]

"time, I think"

Nonsense, most airside staff go through staff gate so the volume of people needing to be screened is a lot less.

If you don't know then just say so - don't try to back up your position with conjecture.


When I passed through staff gate today there was myself and one other in the queue.




S78

[Flintstone]

This thread is just plumbing ever deeper depths of nonsense.

Test every drink? Oh, please :rolleyes:

Arm everyone? Funny the first time I heard it but wearing a bit thin now.

Time to lock this one and deprive certain posters the oxygen of publicity methinks.

[rsuggitt]

""time, I think"Nonsense, most airside staff go through staff gate so the volume of people needing to be screened is a lot less.If you don't know then just say so - don't try to back up your position with conjecture.When I passed through staff gate today there was myself and one other in the queue."Well, let me replace conjecture with some questions....How long would it take to test one drink sample for all possible 'nasties' ?What training would the operator need ?How much would each test cost ?

[S78]

Rsuggitt, most of your questions have already been considered by the powers that be because the security staff on duty when I arrived had a 'liquid testing kit' on site!


As far as cost is concerned - are you trying to put a price on the security of the country??



S78

[ExSp33db1rd]

."That might stop a hijacker (though maybe not if there was more than one) but it probably would not stop a bomber.."

I agree with a previous comment that armed guards of the calibre of the present Security Gestapo ( and not only in the UK ) would be a total disaster - give an idiot a gun and he's going to see how it works - one day - but a reasonable guard stationed at the end of the aisle ( so maybe you'd need 2 ? ) should surely be able to pick off bodies coming towards him, and how many terrosists would it need to exhaust the magazine of an AK-47 ?

Agreed too, that a bomber is a different issue, but the most succesful bombers to date ( 9/11 ) used the aircraft as a bomb, and an armed guard could presumably have stopped that ?

The silent nutters who just blow up an aircraft without warning, either on board or remotely, are again another issue, but I repeat !! --- I thought we are talking about crew frustration here, and how many crew are going to silently blow themselves up ? Of course it could happen, but seriously, what are the odds of that happening - you've more chance of being killed falling out of bed - or quietly dying in it.

We expose ourselves to danger everytime we start our cars, I'm perfectly happy to take the chance that a crew member is suicidal when I get aboard a commercial flight - the odds are acceptable, to me anyway. I can recall only 2 commercial aircraft disasters since the Wright brothers that were attributed to crew suicide, and neither involved creating a bomb out of 101 ml of liquid, or stabbing everybody with a nail file, in both cases the pilot just unexpectedly pointed the aircraft at the ground at a time when the co-pilot was otherwise engaged, and science did the rest.

I have faith in airline management systems identifying the nutters, it's hard enough to get, and keep, the job when one is normal and really trying !

[Dont Hang Up]

As far as cost is concerned - are you trying to put a price on the security of the country??


Of course, and why not?
In much the same way as a price is put on health care or road safety.

The price of anti-terrorism security has unfortunately become grossly disproportinate to the risk and is applied in a manner which is inconsistent and often downright illogical.

[CYPR]

From todays Telegraph. Finally someone is thinking, I hope.

Terrorist threat to airports over lax staff security
Airports are at increasing risk from an "internal terror attack" because of lax security arrangements, according to an official report

It is feared that hundreds of foreigners are being allowed to work in high security parts of Britain's airports without passing proper criminal record checks.

Despite warnings that terrorists have tried to place sleepers in jobs "airside" in terminals, no attempt has been made to check whether foreign workers have committed any offences abroad.

A Government-commissioned report today urged for foreign criminal record checks to be made compulsory for airport workers to combat the threat to security. But it called only for new staff to be checked and not those already in post.

The paper, written by former civil servant Stephen Boys Smith, warned that the greatest threat of terrorism in future may be from "internal attack" and added that the "threat is varied and unpredictable." It said that "long term systemic changes" are needed to combat the threat from within.

There are an estimated 200,000 staff in the "airside'' parts of airports employed in shops, cafes or as cleaners in the departure lounge. Others may be employed as baggage handlers, security guards or driving buses between aircraft and the terminal.

The vetting process - using a criminal records check (CRC) - assesses workers only for crimes committed in Britain. Foreign workers - arriving from inside or outside the European Union - are not checked in their country of origin.

This means that someone with a conviction for firearms or explosives offences committed abroad could, for example, take a job loading bags on to aircraft at Heathrow, Gatwick or any other airport, provided they had committed no crimes here.

The official report, published today, said: "The Department for Transport, in consultation with the industry, should introduce a requirement to obtain foreign CRCs or the nearest equivalent information in cases where CRCs are compulsory to the UK."

[Mungo Man]

I wonder if this is now the case in many places? I recently operated out of MME / Teeside and one of my colleagues asked for a new plastic bag for their liquids at the xray machine. They were told that they would have to go back and buy one from a vending machine however their jacket had already gone through the machine so after some confusion they were reunited with jacket and forced to buy a plastic bag for 50p.

This caused both delay and disbelief that flight crew have to put up with this. The topic of conversation on the way out to the aircraft was quite animated indeed. I don't know how the passengers put up with this either. Needless to say the crew member will be claiming it back from the company but I post this as a warning to other flight crew to go prepared with spare bags procured from 'free' airports to save hassle at MME.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

The Belfast airports have the same policy.

It's quite unbelievable that they are profiteering from supposed security measures.... :ugh:

[Dutchjock]

Same at Luton :ugh:

[CorkEICK]

Same at Liverpool. They are still free in Cork, Dublin and Shannon

Of course now that its turned into a revenue stream there will be no desire to relax restrictions should the situation warrant such a move.

[art deco]

Is it about Security? Is it B******s (allegedly). Notwithstanding that there is a threat of some degree from some people;

Why are Security companies paid a fortune but Security staff not trained and paid badly?...profit not security.

Why are banned Liquids, knives, scissors, cigarette lighters etc. for sale Airside at extortionate prices?...profit, you need to re-buy your supplies etc.

Why are expensive xray machines/metal detectors used on pax/crew whilst stockists/suppliers of the shops can take goods in to sell airside unhindered?...Profit and image. The public see one but not the other and there is big big money in these machines.

Why are airport staff not properly vetted and trained?...Profit, cheap labour

Why do you have to check in so early?....Profit, it increases 'dwell time' for shopping as is the term used by these companies.

This is only about profit. If someone were to look up the food chain you will probably find that the rule makers have a 'vested interest' in the companies involved. Ministers, Lobbyists and other Government personnel have directorships and promises of the like from major corporations. If that were to stop the situation would be different. They would be chosen on merit not on who they can make the most profit for.

climb the pyramid for the answer if anyone dares

[sussex2]

Keep it clubby and professional if you wish; and how do you know that I am not professional, in the same way that I do not know if others are.
Passengers can be equally as 'professional' as pilots, indeed a lot of passengers could be pilots.
You cannot possibly restrict a website to a particular group. How on earth would you sanction it?
Remark addressed to 'Flintstone'...

[pilotbear]

missing the point a bit aren't you? As a pilot you are security checked and vetted and checked to a ridiculous degree, even more so if you have an American license. What are we going to do with a toothpaste tube or a pot of yogurt? WE have control of the aeroplane for :mad:s cake:ugh:
Passengers are strangers and have had no vetting prior to the flight and could have ulterior motives however, removing objects that can be repurchased airside is just ludicrous.

[wiggy]

It's not about being professional or even us being "clubby". We are required, as part of our job description to take control and Command of the aircraft - it happens on every flight, so screening us for weapons or devices that would allow us to take control of said aircraft is pretty darn pointless...you, on the other hand sit on the comfy side of the flight deck door, you are not allowed to attempt to take control or Command, so no matter how professional you are you rightly will continue to be screened.

Sorry if that offends, but there is a difference, hence this thread.

[Flintstone]

I think Sussex2 is referring to the idea of excluding non-aviation professionals from the site (my comment above).

Keep it clubby and professional if you wish; and how do you know that I am not professional, in the same way that I do not know if others are.

I made no comment whatsoever on your professional status.



You cannot possibly restrict a website to a particular group. How on earth would you sanction it?
Remark addressed to 'Flintstone'...

I didn't say you could restrict access easily. In fact I have never claimed to have 'the answer'. Anyone who has been on PPRuNe for any length of time will know that the subject crops up with monotonous regularity and until recently I've thought it a daft idea but as I wrote up there some of the idiotic posts appearing lately are leading me to see the pro-pro's point of view.

Sorry if this offends you but I think you'll find the majority feel the same. Not that such a scheme would ever come about.

[el #]

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:010:0001:0206:EN:PDF

Not many apparent changes. Now since they don't want the shop owners to loose any business, the "checkable bag" has been introduced to let pax buy booze airside in an airport and keep traveling with it within 36 hours.

You should be able to fight for you right to embark a nail clipper or file now.

I Totally agree with Art deco above.

[sussex2]

My original point was more to show that if you start to make exceptions, then where do you go from there.
Most members of the travelling public may believe that the security they experience at an airport is the be all and end all of the matter. Many will not be aware of the vetting processes.
Some things you just have to grin and bear.
ps I am one of those lucky individuals who has sat on both sides of the armoured door.

[kflexer]

I work at an airport in an arab country where every day we pass through a separate gate to get airside to our hangar. Every body from Police, customs and immigration to hangar staff, engineers and Pilots pass through this gate. To date I have never seen an arab searched or be made to put his belongings through the x ray machine let alone even show his pass. All non arabs must do so. That is the state of affairs here, Im sure they couldn't sneak anything through under their big white dresses? But feel safe when Passing through the Middle east knowing that at least al the western ex pat air crew are not getting through with anything nasty. I don't mind putting my Bags through the ex ray and emptying my pockets so I don't beep and showing my ID, I just wish everybody had to do the same, Nothing worse than watching a whole lot of people just cruise through beeping away and not even showing ID to what's probably one or the Busiest airports in the world.:ugh:

[wiggy]

Thanks for the clarfication. Having said that, exceptions are already made, police already carry firearms airside, sharp items are available airside...and lo we are back to the fire axe on the flight deck argument and so I suspect this thread is like the Hamster's wheel, it'll go round forever.

Personally I feel of lot of the Screening is either window dressing and/or politicians covering their six O'Clocks and nothing is going to change. I can grudgingly live with that fact provided I'm treated with some degree of respect by the screeners, and to be fair most of the security personnel who I have had dealings with both on and off duty have been efficient and pleasant. Unfortunately there is the very small percentage of Security Personnel who seem to think their training and their function gives them the right to treat crew like ****. Its these "bottom fondling failed traffic wardens", who can have your ID and hence your job that we need rid of...but how?

[rsuggitt]

My original point was more to show that if you start to make exceptions, then where do you go from there.


My worry would be, as soon as some exceptions are made, someone will try to exploit them.

[triple smudge]

Comments I read and hear frequently:
- why do I need a weapon when I have the aeroplane? I could just push forward and game over.
- this is just political correctness ("gone mad")
- we are above screening ("period")

I want to be screened and here's why.

If pilots are the one group that can bypass security screening, the bad guys will know this and we will become the way in.

It's fairly straightforward: you get a phone call on your way to work, telling you that your family is being held and will come to serious harm very soon unless you comply.

They don't tell you to crash your own aircraft. Instead, they want you to pick up a package, deliver it airside, and go about your business.

If we're searched like passengers, this loophole is closed and the problem never arises.

This tactic is not new.

It sometimes seems petty, yes - but on the balance, I'll take the search.

Smudge

[Right Engine]

Smudge,

Pilots are not asking to be excluded from baggage x-ray and the metal detector loop. We just want to bring the toothpaste/deodorant of our choice.

RTFQ.

[His dudeness]

Comments I read and hear frequently:
- why do I need a weapon when I have the aeroplane? I could just push forward and game over.
- this is just political correctness ("gone mad")
- we are above screening ("period")


Yeah, yeah.

There are ARMED pilots, at least in the US.

I don´t need a weapon as I have the crashaxe up front.

But my nailscissors are taken away.

And every freakin airport has a different set of rules.

My opinion: crew security being at the same level than pax is just plain ridiculous. I feel above that. Cause I don´t need a weapon.

How hard is it to grasp that concept? Is that rocketscience? Why should I be denied tobring my own mineralwater. I like to have the same restriction put on members of parliament - that would be gone quicker as a lightning. It is easy to put restrictions on others.

They have gone mad. PERIOD.

[triple smudge]

RE -

Unfair to say RTFQ.

Although in principle I agree with you on toothpaste and deoderant, having flown an 11 hour sector last night (although it was 4 crew and come to think of it, we didn't smell all that bad... or maybe it's just habituation).

Also, while I have the luxury of putting my various sprays and liquids (!) in the hold, I know that on shorthaul things aren't the same. Perhaps Old Spice needs to put out "pilot sized" aerosols.

However, as for "pilots are not asking to be excluded...", have a look at the first page of this thread. Fair enough, the posts are a year old, but I still hear this sort of thing on occasion.

There are those who think we should be above security checks because we have the aeroplane in our hands. I don't agree and my post says why I don't agree. If the IRA can do it, so can Al Qaeda.

Smudge (search me!)

[rsuggitt]

If pilots are the one group that can bypass security screening, the bad guys will know this and we will become the way in.

It's fairly straightforward: you get a phone call on your way to work, telling you that your family is being held and will come to serious harm very soon unless you comply.

They don't tell you to crash your own aircraft. Instead, they want you to pick up a package, deliver it airside, and go about your business.

If we're searched like passengers, this loophole is closed and the problem never arises.



It's so nice to read someone who understands the threats for once.

[Romeo India Xray]

Can you kindly explain how this scenario correlates to taking water, nail clippers or prescribed medication through security. We ALL know these things are about as much use to a terrorist as t*ts are on a bull.

No one is complaining about being screened for explosives, guns, hand grenades or semtex, but do you not think that stopping me taking my nail clippers in my flight bag is a bit far feched?

Oh no, wait - I can see the terrorist headbutting the re-inforced door down now, diving into my flight bag and using my nail-clippers to take over the aircraft ..... get real!!! :mad: :ugh:

[rsuggitt]

No one is complaining about being screened for explosives, guns, hand grenades or semtex,


Excellent, we're now down to talking about the details rather than the main principles of security.

Can you kindly explain how this scenario correlates to taking water, nail clippers or prescribed medication through security. We ALL know these things are about as much use to a terrorist as t*ts are on a bull.


It's been proven that UK-based terrorists planned to smuggle the ingredients for explosives onto a plane by disguising then as drinks. That's why there's now a limit of 100ml on liquids. Although it has been shown (I dont say conclusively) that such an explosive would have been ineffective, it's also possible that other dangerous liquids might be used, such as neat alcohol (flammable) or acids.
So it's sensible to prevent other than very small quantities of liquids being carried on board.
And if aircrew are thirsty, I'm sure there will be water on board the plane.

The prescription drugs.... well, that does seem a bit strange, and I dont defend it.

Nailclippers.... am I right in thinking that the 9/11 terrorists used very small weapons (knives) to overcome the crew? And dont some nailclippers include a blade?
So to be safe, it's better to include a blanket ban, dont you think. Why in any case would aircrew need nailclippers available during a flight?

And before anyone says 'pilots could crash the plane anyway', I think we've established the principle that what we're trying to protect against is the possibility that aircrew could be coerced to carrying something on board, or could be impersonated.

[Tjosan]

Nailclippers.... am I right in thinking that the 9/11 terrorists used very small weapons (knives) to overcome the crew? And dont some nailclippers include a blade?
So to be safe, it's better to include a blanket ban, dont you think. Why in any case would aircrew need nailclippers available during a flight?

Please, the knife that you are provided with during the meal is both longer and sharper than your nail clipper blade. Have you ever been onboard an aircraft?

[blimey]

If pilots are the one group that can bypass security screening, the bad guys will know this and we will become the way in.

It's fairly straightforward: you get a phone call on your way to work, telling you that your family is being held and will come to serious harm very soon unless you comply.



Mate, you're in the realms of fantasy:

Aircrew have a number of ways of alerting the police to any problems.

And, as the police are free to come and go with their weapons, are their families not a better target?

Finally, why would you need a pilot courier when retailers ship in vast quantities of stuff and trucks come and go with only a cursory check; or how about the stuff is just thrown over the fence to be picked up later. Or perhaps as the rest of the world (Australia excepted) isn't stupidly anal about crew and liquids, they could be sipped in from the other end.

As usual with the this government, it wants to be seen to be doing things, however worthless they really are. A good example of this being the obsession with CRCs which means companies employ unchecked foreigners rather than wait the 6+ weeks for a Brit to be checked - idiotic!

[blimey]

Nailclippers.... am I right in thinking that the 9/11 terrorists used very small weapons (knives) to overcome the crew? And dont some nailclippers include a blade?
So to be safe, it's better to include a blanket ban, dont you think.

You'll be very much in favour of Sihks not being allowed to bring their kirpans airside then. And of course, no glass onboard!

Why in any case would aircrew need nailclippers available during a flight?

To clip snagged nails; or perhaps to nibble a razor sharp edge onto the crash axe!

:rolleyes:

[rsuggitt]

Please, the knife that you are provided with during the meal is both longer and sharper than your nail clipper blade. Have you ever been onboard an aircraft?


Yes, many times, and I dont recall ever getting a metal knife or fork that was sharp enough to cut my meal, let alone hurt anyone. In fact a lot of the time I get plastic cutlery.

[rsuggitt]

Finally, why would you need a pilot courier when retailers ship in vast quantities of stuff and trucks come and go with only a cursory check; or how about the stuff is just thrown over the fence to be picked up later


Has anyone attacked an aircraft using material smuggled airside by someone else, or by using material thrown over a fence? Not as far as I recollect.

[rsuggitt]

You'll be very much in favour of Sihks not being allowed to bring their kirpans airside then. And of course, no glass onboard!


Yup, to be consistent these ought to be banned too.

[SpacePilot]

What about the Fedex flight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Flight_705) where the deadhead had a guitar case full of hammers, which he used to attack the crew ? Air Crew should have the same checks as passengers, they should lead by example. I find it frightening to see on this forum how many pilots have "power-play" issues, these people should not be airline pilots.

[brakedwell]

Has anyone attacked an aircraft using material smuggled airside by someone else, or by using material thrown over a fence? Not as far as I recollect.

I don't recollect anyone attacked an aircraft using material smuggled airside by a pilot either. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[rsuggitt]

I don't recollect anyone attacked an aircraft using material smuggled airside by a pilot either



But aircraft have been attacked by passengers getting materials through security and on board. So the idea is to try as far as possible to close this route.

[Ladusvala]

Rsuggitt comments on many things but he avoids commenting on "glass onboard". For sure, a broken bottle is a much more dangerous and lethal weapon than nailclippers. Still, bottles are not prohibited. It makes no sense.

[gooneydog]

Maybe flight crews should stand on jetways and take all duty free bottles from pax in the name of "security"

Call it "over and above " security

[brakedwell]

This thread is going round in ever decreasing circles. :ugh::ugh: my computer say - no more rsuggitt!

[Abusing_the_sky]

Paarmo gone, rsuggit took his place....:eek:


Witnessed just yesterday, going through security:

SS (security staff): Gonna do a liquid test on you love
Aircrew (female pilot): Oh you did one every day for the past week so go ahead (smiling ironically)
SS: Well you always come in at the same times we have to do liquid tests. It's because you are carrying them, we have to test them. Stop carrying them and we won't test them.

(me waiting to go through thinking are you for real????)

Aircrew: I understand DfT's requirements but this looks a bit strange, me being searched and screened EVERY day
SS: take your shoes off
Aircrew: But.. the gate didn't beep.... ok here you go.
SS muttering: serves you right for messing with me; turns around to the pilot: well if you don't like it you shouldn't have become a pilot, innit love?

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Goes to prove what subspecies DfT employs. Regardless the fact that the DfT has the most outrageous rules when it comes to pilots going through security (we all know that a pilot has the deadliest weapon on his hands and that's the a/c itself, so what's he/she gonna do with a nail clipper, clip a pax's nails to death??:ugh:), the DfT ALSO is to blame for employing UK's "finest" council estates representatives.
Get a grip and why not replace the so called "security staff" with REAL, trained police officers and then we'll stop complaining about liquid tests?? I have respect for a police officer; a simple security staff with 2 days training does NOT impress me.
Oh i know, it'll cost you more...
Want top notch security, aircrew and pax wise? Pay up and stop asking me to show my crew bag to a spotted oik with NO real security training.


Rgds,
ATS


PS: brakedwell, use IGNORE like many others did with Paarmo. Works wonders!:ok:

[west lakes]

Well you always come in at the same times we have to do liquid tests

What a wonderful bit of security, do the same test at the same time. Wouldn't take long to figure that out if you wanted to circumvent it:ugh:

[Atreyu]

I think the real anti-terror work is done far away from the 'front line' of airport security, by police and intelligence officers.

Although I would hardly say the security staff are fools, it would be interesting to see what training they actually receive.

And....

Does anyone check the ID of the security staff? :}

Atreyu:ok:

[agamanx]

My wife uses an electric dry cell wheelchair. At every check in she is gently patted down and allowed to drive her wheelchair through security. This is a machine that has batteries, electrics, etc. Does anybody wonder what is in the big box under the chair?

[ExSp33db1rd]

rsuggit #905 Why in any case would aircrew need nailclippers available during a flight?

Hasn't it occurred to your pea brain that the crew member might not actually want nail clippers during a flight, but he/she might not actually be going home that night either, he/she might actually be trying to sleep at some anti-social hour in some hotel besieged by lager louts keeping the bar open until all hours with their boom boxes at 150 Db and might actually want to carry a toilet case with razors, and nail clippers, and toothpaste and after shave and deodorant and Lomitol and a host of other things that, travelling frequently, one keeps in a standard kit that gets thrown in the overnight bag regardless,without having to be customised before every departure, and that for Shorthaul crew an overnight bag carried on to the aircraft is all that is necessary, no hold bag to be loaded upside down, wrecked, or lost ? Therefore said items have to go through crew security. Get a Life and start brain before putting mouth into gear.

And to the other idiot, whose name I have already suppressed, but who thinks that this is a Power Play, you have totally missed the point - this is a Flight Crew forum exchanging comments about the totally unreasonable approach to security that crew have to put up with EVERY time that they go to work, they are not moaning about security per se, just the unreasonable, and largely useless, excessive application of security measures by total deadheads, mostly. I'm glad in this respect that I'm now ex-crew, I doubt that I would have the patience to put up with it now.

I could add a host of Mickey Mouse experiences that I was subjected to,to the many that have been quoted here, sadly nothing changes. Maybe it needs a concerted effort by every crew member to refuse en masse at Heathrow one day - just close the place down until sense prevails - but I guess it never would, even then -but it might hit the Press and make the bean counters notice ! :ok:

I have just found my IGNORE command - for both of you. Goodnight.

[qwertyplop]

Rsuggit wrote;

And if aircrew are thirsty, I'm sure there will be water on board the plane.

How did that water get onboard then? Why is that water safe but my bottle of Evian is not?

You don't really get it do you?

[qwertyplop]

Atreyu wrote;

I think the real anti-terror work is done far away from the 'front line' of airport security, by police and intelligence officers.

Although I would hardly say the security staff are fools, it would be interesting to see what training they actually receive.

And....

Does anyone check the ID of the security staff? http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/badteeth.gif

Atreyuhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Spot on.

[eastern wiseguy]

Wonder how the cartridge got on board the Ryanair? Surely Rsuggits crack team of yoghurt pilferers didn't slip up?:hmm:

[blimey]

Spacepilot


What about the Fedex flight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Flight_705) where the deadhead had a guitar case full of hammers, which he used to attack the crew ? Air Crew should have the same checks as passengers, they should lead by example. I find it frightening to see on this forum how many pilots have "power-play" issues, these people should not be airline pilots.


How many more times, you halfwit. We have a crash axe, and any number of highly imflammable gas cylinders to bugger about with!

:ugh:

[overstress]

How would rsuggit react to the fact that aircraft captains all over the UK are taking 6" knives with them on every flight, and it's going on now and there's nothing he can do to stop it?

In fact I flew from a UK airport earlier this year with such a knife and no-one stopped me.

The pilots on here will appreciate the irony.

[ExSp33db1rd]

How many more times, you halfwit. We have a crash axe, and any number of highly imflammable gas cylinders to bugger about with!


We're just wasting our time, there's none so deaf as those who don't want to hear.

[el #]

.. Or someone that doesn't want to loose his job.
In fact C.pt. ExSp33db1rd you've been very kind by giving him a long explanation before.
Unfortunately having "them" to change opinion is a lost battle, just as hoping that rules will ever change.

[ExSp33db1rd]

El# Sad but true ! I'll just go off and fly my Microlight instead, drive my car across the airfield, open the hangar - go. Won't talk to ANYONE !
(One of the pleasures of living in NZ, tho' today it is bl***y cold and p****ng down, and as my M/light isn't licenced for single pilot IFR I'll just have to go to the pub instead ! )

[WFH]

Does anyone check the ID of the security staff? http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/badteeth.gif
Atreyuhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Spot on.They check the Security Staff's ID at the airport where I work but if there is no supervisor there that is as far as it goes. Through the detector to airside with shoes and jackets on and the detector playing a tune and no search is carried out. It has been reported but it still goes on.

[fc101]

Quote:
Please, the knife that you are provided with during the meal is both longer and sharper than your nail clipper blade. Have you ever been onboard an aircraft?
Yes, many times, and I dont recall ever getting a metal knife or fork that was sharp enough to cut my meal, let alone hurt anyone. In fact a lot of the time I get plastic cutlery

Last time I got a plastic knife a did a very good job of slicing my finger open :mad:

Considering the billions that have been spent on "improving security", why don't we have security machines good enough to tell the difference between a "normal" liquid and explosive? Why don't we have security machines that can tell the difference between a bomb belt and the kind that holds your trousers up with? etc etc etc

I can handle security being the same for SLF and crew IF AND ONLY IF it is implemented sensibly, consistently and without all these stupid ideas of confiscating items which can not in any reasonable way be used as weapons when I can easily buy a bottle of something from the duty free, open the sealed bag it during flight, smash the bottle and then go on a minor ramage...

fc101
E145 driver and sometimes SLF

[cortilla]

Had to laugh this morning. Spent a couple of hours in luton this morning waiting to position back. Went to the gents and there was one of those vending machines. One of the items for sale was a men's travel grooming kit. In the pack was the usual stuff like toothpaste and brush deodarant and a RAZOR!!! You just have to laugh. The lunatics really have taken over the asylum.:8:8:ugh::D

[etrang]

Maybe it needs a concerted effort by every crew member to refuse en masse at Heathrow one day - just close the place down until sense prevails - it might hit the Press and make the bean counters notice

I think you are right. Cost the airlines serious amounts of money or stop large numbers of people traveling and you have a chance of changing things. But no amount of complaining on an internet message board is going to change anything.

[AMEandPPL]

You just have to laugh. The lunatics really have taken over the asylum

Could not agree more ! I returned back home yesterday in an F50 from LCY. I watched amazed as my briefcase was propelled through the X-ray machine TOTALLY UNSEEN by the supposed operator, who was having a good old chinwag with her mate. Needless to say, I said nothing - had I done so I would probably have been the one arrested as a troublemaker !

[etsd0001]

What I think is ironic is when I have to renew my UK Airport ID every 5 Yrs I have to take with me my passport and NI number to prove who I am in spite of the fact I have a valid Airport ID that I used to get airside to drive to the ID unit!

Are they saying the current ID isn't worth the plastic it is printed on?

[Atreyu]

I think the problems we face are that the security industry is making a huge amount of money from security contracts.

Even BAA who do it themselves (at least their BAA branded clothes say so!) will make money from countless pax and crew airside shopping trips to buy deodorant etc.

A very Us and Them attitude has devoloped between flightcrew and security staff, flightcrew being tired of blanket rules being very forcefully and anally applied, and I'm sure some of the security staff perceive pilots as jumped up arrogant half day workers not worth the fake gold or silver on their removed and scanned jackets.

A consensus should be reached on a way forward, with BALPA studies showing a high percentage of pilots feeling some level of stress after passing through security, I do fear maybe one day crew and security getting into a 'heated debate'... :ouch:

But besides en masse strike at Heathrow, delaying huge numbers of flights or perhaps some BALPA action I'm afraid nothing will change.

I know we all hate the silly rules but until we have a real change best thing to do is all try and be as professional as possible, report any incidents through the proper channels and your union and most of all, rise above it. Far more benefit comes from being completely right and dealing with it in a professional and courteous manner than having a shouting match (or worse!)with the security staff

(even if it makes you feel better!)

Atreyu:ok:

[el #]

Had to laugh this morning. Spent a couple of hours in luton this morning waiting to position back. Went to the gents and there was one of those vending machines. One of the items for sale was a men's travel grooming kit. In the pack was the usual stuff like toothpaste and brush deodarant and a RAZOR!!! You just have to laugh. The lunatics really have taken over the asylum.

Cortilla, razors or the modern type are explicitly permitted item per EU regulations, see 4.1.1(b)
Since I think I've posted the wrong link previously, here it is again:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:221:0008:0022:EN:PDF

Also, the EC commision has decided "more transparency" for the security rules and introduce the "tamper proof" bag to promote sale of booze to people making connections in Europe. Thank you very much.

[Ladusvala]

"Tamper proof bag", so one cannot brake a bottle inside the bag to use the broken bottle as a deadly weapon onboard the aircraft then?

[el #]

Ladusvala, I've never seen one, but I guess these are clear or semi-clear bags so "security" can check the content without opening them.

As weapon in cabin, a broken bottle is not the optimum (although it has been used successfully in the past). There are more effective ways.

[Ladusvala]

"There are more effective ways."

Like nailclippers you mean? (Sorry, couldn´t resist.)

[Ancient Observer]

Can we close this thread down, please?
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.............

[SPEED-DEMON]

On this topic, here is an interesting one to ponder. I am working at a busy European airport. Anyway during my training in regard to air safety I was told by an airport official that a pilot travelling in the jump seat had a claw hammer in his carry on luggage. Once at altitude he struck the captain across the head. The first officer then over powered him and made an emergency landing.
Apparently the pilot in the jump seat wasn't screened correctly for whatever reason, I don't know.
So just a thought, you might have good intentions of flying safely from A to B, the guy helping you fly may not.
Its the world we live in guys and I suppose every little is worth doing when it come to air safety.

[StudentInDebt]

Speed-Demon, isn't it lucky that said jumpseat rider didn't use the mandatory crash-axe instead? He might have done some real damage with that :ugh:

[Nashers]

speed demond,

pilots are not saying they do not want to be screened/ have baggage checked. what they are saying is they want to be able to take a juice on board so they can drink it during the day.

on some airlines like ryanair, if crew want to have a sandwich and a drink, they have to pay full price like the pax.

other crew have stop overs. they may only be one or two nights so why bother packing the sink and then having to wait for it to come out at baggage claim. why not just take a small bag on board with you and once you land you go to the hotel without delay. crew get 8 hours rest. but then they have to travel to and from the aircraft in that time as well. every extra minute you have in bed helps.

yes screening was not done well on that flight you stated (i believe its the fedex flight your talking about), but as someone has already stated here, when bags are screened why are the security staff chatting away?

crew complain about having silly things like the knife you get on board to eat with si taken off them at security.

with bottles, fine you get a tamper proof bag when you buy your bottle of bacardi, but a tamper proof bag will not help anyone when you rip it open at 33,000ft, take the cap of the bottle and stuff a napkin down the neck. hey presto you have yourself a bomb which you can light with the safty matches you carry on board with you, which are allowed.

[call100]

There seems to be some kind of competition here....How many times can you say the same thing??????????:\

[A and C]

In the UK the changes that are necessary to prevent 99% of the problems are as follows

1 A common security standard at ALL airports so that crew know exactly what is allowed and what is not.

2 A robust and effective complaints procedure that is indipendent of the security management.

If this was put in place most of the problems would disappear as the source of most disputes is from crews away from home base that has to abide by unfamilure local rules.

At the moment the all the security staff hide behind the management who delay and hinder complaints (it took the BAA at STN 3 months to reply to me!). If they had to answer to an independent body they would be a lot less aggressive.

[qwertyplop]

If they hold a SIA licence - report them to the SIA. If they don't - go to the DfT. Put the ball in their court - they cannot ignore your complaint - they are obliged in law to respond to you.

If you believe you've been assaulted - report the operative to the Police.

Don't muck about anymore - just do it.

[Halfbaked_Boy]

First post in a while - without wishing to detract away from the original topic, what's always illuminated itself to me is it seems that if somebody wishes to cause mass havoc/panic, further drugs trafficking, smuggle other illegal items and all other eventualities associated with the reasoning behind airport security, it would be alarmingly easy to turn to GA and use smaller airports/fields without the presence of security and/or customs. I know if I had such intent, that's where I would turn. Sure, a 172 doesn't make as big a hole as a 747, but in essence doesn't anybody agree that perhaps this is another string to the bow re the argument against such nanny statism as far as security goes?

Cheers, and just my two cents,

Jack

[ZeBedie]

Our Nanny State would respond to that argument by imposing full security for GA fields, which would go a long way towards killing GA - something they probably would quite like. Best not mention it then :rolleyes:

[Possum3]

Halfbaked boy- your post fully endorses your handle.

P3

[Halfbaked_Boy]

One should prefer to be enlightened?

Jack

[XT668]

Personally, I felt that HBB had an extremely good point. A 172, or 525 or bigger that would operate from a smaller strip could make - (from some people's perspective) - a quite satisfactory hole in the Houses of Parliament without the loss of life associated with a 747. Publicity is all - it's probably just a matter of time.

[Greek God]

Within the last week Brs decided to remove my 75cl bottle of aftershave due to the 75cl markings having rubbed off - no dicussion - bottle has no markings so not allowed even after presenting an exact same tester loaned from duty free. Bfs decided my plastic bag was too big - took bag as is and placed in a smaller bag which was re-xrayed and voila now its ok
:= :rolleyes: :ugh: :D
All in the name of security :ok:

[ExSp33db1rd]

This published this morning in The New Zealand Herald -'tis the same the world over, sadly ........

Strange security (non) threat #3: When Craig Taylor stepped off a plane in Sydney, the air hostess gave him a small bottle of orange juice that was left over. "I then went to the security checkpoint, as I was travelling on to Auckland. As the bag passed through the x-ray, the security officer exclaimed, "he's got a bottle of drink!" I was given the option of "skolling" the item or surrendering it. I surrendered it - then took 12 paces into the secure area and bought another one from the first shop I came to."

Unfortunately the security idiots will say that the one you bought had been security screened, tasted tested and subject to every filter known to man ( Ha Ha ! ) whereas yours was obviously neat explosive.

[Mick Stability]

It seems that reason will get us nowhere in this 'debate'. I can only assume that the only possible explanation as to why pilots are subjected to humiliation and degredation, is that we can be. It also gives some bitter people the opportunity to extract revenge for our privileged position.

If that's not it, then tell me why we're doing this?

I'm afraid the only casualty in this is security (sic), which has now descended into a farcical stand off between pilots and the scanner wardens.:ugh:

[Willie Everlearn]

I made a deal with the young security screener who confiscated my 130 ml bottle of after shave (with about 30 mls left in it), from my shaving kit.
(130 ml bottles don't travel) :eek:

I told him he gets to take my bottle of after shave but he had to listen to my rant in exchange, without arresting me. (you have the option of leaving security screening to put it in your checked baggage) I explained that I needed to lower my stress level before boarding my flight because this total lack of common sense, 'discretion', or use of 'prudence' in the application of security screening regs was starting to wear thin these 7 years later.
If I had to sit on the same aeroplane with "x" number of pax and their 1 liter bottles of duty free booze then something didn't add up. :=

"...excuse me, Sir, the wine is in a sealed bottle!!!"

Silly me, what was I thinking? :ugh:

[verticalhold]

Having bitched about certain airports may I now give a bouquet?

Recently travelled on leave through LGW North. Approaching security my brain went into daily hassle mode and I removed watch (I'm a pilot, it's a big bugger), belt, change, wallet etc and put them through the scanner. I went through the arch and went ping. The security guy was superb. Ex forces and retired police I found out as he went through handheld metal detector and pat down routine. He had seen the shedding of gear I'd gone through and couldn't believe it when the detector went off. Eventually I was waved through by a man who had smiled, been polite and not made me feel the slightest bit inconvienienced. As I gathered up my kit he said "I'm sure that thing is set to go off every 18 passes whether it detects or not."

However, we then got to the shoe check where a loud woman was demanding the usual removal, a familly with young kids approached and she shouted at everyone to get out of their way and put their shoes back on so the familly could pass. That incident provided a lot of food for thought..

VH

[lc_aerobatics]

On this topic, here is an interesting one to ponder. I am working at a busy European airport. Anyway during my training in regard to air safety I was told by an airport official that a pilot travelling in the jump seat had a claw hammer in his carry on luggage. Once at altitude he struck the captain across the head. The first officer then over powered him and made an emergency landing.
Apparently the pilot in the jump seat wasn't screened correctly for whatever reason, I don't know.
So just a thought, you might have good intentions of flying safely from A to B, the guy helping you fly may not.
Its the world we live in guys and I suppose every little is worth doing when it come to air safety.


I think you're referring to FedEx accident.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Flight_705 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Flight_705)

FedEx_705_(by_apapele182).wmv (http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?7kk1zsbxxya)

[el #]

Since the reference to Molotov cocktails made from duty free liquors and matches has appeared now twice, let's puts things in clear: it can't be done.

Try yourself, get the highest proof liquor, matches, put a rug in the bottle neck or whatever you want, try to set it on fire or make it explode. You will see what I mean. Molotov's are NOT made like that.

Then to have even more fun try that, get on a plane, prepare you little device and threaten people as you like. Let me know how it ends :)

[Romeo India Xray]

So just to clear one thing up, the risks associated with Smirnoffotov Cocktails are about the same as those posed by nail clippers. Interesting!

I put forward the motion that a broken glass bottle that previously contained said incendary device IS however a leathal weapon. Then again, how many times has this one been put forward and promptly ignored?

RIX

[verticalhold]

In a former life in the army I was taught how to make a lethal weapon from a newspaper. Just think of all those CC handing out lethal weapons at the aircraft door.

VH

[Abusing_the_sky]

I've posted on this thread before, and then just monitored it. I thought, we all have had bad experiences but agreed with the posters that said here we are, complaining on a rumour network site; however this won't change the security regulations with regards to flight crew/CC in (and i refer to UK) airports and agreed with those who said someone, somewhere, has to do something about this.
I will now post the experience i had yesterday, going through staff channel, at EMA; there will be no accusations, no swearing, no pointing out the obvious; just what happened.
As required i put everything in the tray, the clear plastic bag as well, took my shoes off, my jacket off, the whole lot. Went through the gate to notice there were a lot of SS in the room. Two of them were monitoring the operating SS, taking notes and keeping "an eye open". To be honest i thought nothing of it, and went to get my stuff. Then the screen operator asks to have a look in my handbag. I say sure, go ahead. He then took everything out from my clear plastic bag and simply asked me "what do you want to leave behind?". Rather confused i asked why do i have to leave anything behind. The answer was simple "the plastic bag can't be sealed, you have too much stuff; it needs to be sealed". I felt forced shall i say to agree (it was a first in 18 months i operated out of EMA, never before i had problems with my bag not being sealed) and then chose what i leave behind so that the plastic bag can be sealed;
I asked for a receipt to collect my items when i return. I've been told that one can not be issued with a receipt and that the items will be disposed.
I am now without a L'Oreal Mascara worth £6.99 and a 100ml L'oreal hair spray worth about £3. (my fingertips really want to type a point but i did promise i won't).


Rgds,
ATS

[moist]

The other day I set off the beep in the arch.
The supervisor searched me really thoroughly, as you do if you think I was a terrorist.
While he was doing all this I said to him, you know you can search me all you want, but if I brought my airplane through this place you wouldn't let it through would you.
Why not? - He asked.
I said because it's full of metal, liquids a huge axe and a tiny bit of fuel too and it's being made all ready for me to use right now - just outside!!!!!! Hehehehe.
He was truly stunned by this - loved it!!!
The sec. girl next to him started laughing :D :D :D

[42psi]

Thought this one might tickle those who like to hear of the rambling lack of logic in the currently applied security process....


UK group of airports

Staff from one of the group are attending a course at the "main base".

The course is airside.


Security tell them that passes from other airports in the group are not interchangeable for other sites and so they must get a visitor pass.

When collecting their visitor passes they are told they cannot use their "other group airport passes" as proof of identity ... they must bring passports etc.

When being issued with their temporary passes they are then told they must hand over their "other airport pass".

When they quite naturally ask why they are told ......


"Because you can't hold two passes at the same time"

:E

[S78]

Officious security geek to two plain clothed customs officers yesterday:


Why aren't you in uniform?

Where are you going?


After being told that they weren't going to answer the first 2 questions, security geek said......


I'm not sure if I can let you through


Unfortunately he let them through, I'd have given this weeks pay to watch the customs guys march him off in handcuffs:E



S78

[dhoejgaard]

Within the last week Brs decided to remove my 75cl bottle of aftershave due to the 75cl markings having rubbed off - no dicussion - bottle has no markings so not allowed even after presenting an exact same tester loaned from duty free. Bfs decided my plastic bag was too big - took bag as is and placed in a smaller bag which was re-xrayed and voila now its ok

All in the name of security


I didn't think that a Greek God would use aftershave - and so do they think on the hill in BFS!

[TwinJock]

LHR - after stripping my shoes, cap, watch, jacket, removing my laptop, and spreading them, my TIP EX is found in my pilot bag and is deemed ..... wait for it....

A THREAT TO SECURITY!!

The 349 ton twin jet strapped to my backside - that is not a threat, but TIP EX is!:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Romeo India Xray]

You could argue that Tipex is essential to the safety of the flight - Corrections on paperwork ... (lets face it they dont know about triplicate carbon copies).

Maybe you could have bought some mileage by threatening endangering an aircraft and its occupants by this confiscation - I do believe it is reasonable as flight deck to take suitable items of stationery in your flight bag (no pencil sharpner though as that is more dangerous than the axe).

RIX

[K.Whyjelly]

BHX security still seem to think that a pot of yoghurt is a highly dangerous part of a liquid ED and still confiscate them. Haven't seen any halt to them being loaded as part of crew breakfast goodie tray though....(but they probably go through a far more rigorous check by Air Fayre or whoever the food supplier is:bored: )

[qwertyplop]

Gatwick on Tues - staff channel.

Watched what was either a plain clothed customs or immigration officer go through on a escorted day pass with a warrant card as back-up. Bloke put his bits and bobs through the x-ray, went through and was set upon by an operative who yanked his arms up in an extremely agitated way for some reason and started barking in the persons face about concealing a weapon because his arms were not high enough.

Aforementioned person not happy, appeared to be in some discomfort as a consequence of the operatives actions, a brief verbal exchange ensued ending with the aforementioned bloke asking for the operatives id card number. And here's the incredible bit, the operative backed right off and hid his card, refusing to show the card to the official asking. I believe if the police, customs or immigration ask for your card details airside, you are obliged to give them, no questions asked.

Supervisor got involved, quiet words were exchanged on what looked a friendly basis which ended with the official writing something down and moving off.

What sort of security idiot f*cks with customs/police when they have clearly complied with whatever they've been asked to do - I suspect it won't end there for this operative - I hope not - he exemplified everything I despise about some of these knobbers.

You pick your battles I was always taught..........

[Xeque]

For what it's worth I departed from Heathrow last Saturday evening on my way back home to Thailand. I was planning on going by train to Amsterdam but the chunnel was on fire and closed - just my luck.
I have to say that security at LHR was, for once, a non-event. The lady on the metal detector was (I think) of Eastern European origin and was very pleasant. I put my see-through plastic bag containing toothbrush, 50ml mouthwash and 50ml skin freshener through the machine. No problem. Backup batteries for my camera and MP3 player in my laptop bag were no problem either. I retained my belt and shoes and passed through the arch without beeping it. I remembered seeing a clear passage along the side of the separate shoe check the last time I came through Heathrow. It was still there so I bypassed the shoe check and on to the Immigration desk where an Immigration Officer of Indian origin merely glanced at my passport and I was through.
Including queue time I was through in less than 15 minutes allowing me time for a couple of pints before boarding. Usually I end up having to run to the gate.
So, was I just lucky or is Heathrow trying to clean up it's security act? :hmm:

[paarmo]

After being suspended from this forum for telling the truth and being insulted and villified by users and the moderator I am back. I was recently abused by security operatives in the UK but was subject to exactly the same searches in Holland and Germany with humour ( yes humour in Germany) and efficiency.
The nub of this post is not about the searching and security procedures it is about the neccessity of it applying to aircrew.
As I said in the Post immediately before I was suspended why is it that someone who has 6 weeks training in opening aircraft doors and has a supposedly 5 year checkable work history should be waved through all security procedures and treated as royalty.
This is madness and should not even be considered

[eastern wiseguy]

After being suspended from this forum for telling the truth and being insulted and villified by users and the moderator I am back.

Probably not for long!!

[S78]

No, the nub of this thread is about ineffective rules put in place by politicians who think that being seen to be doing anything is the best PR and enforced by Aldi rejects who have no concept of common sense and use the job as a power trip and an opportunity to take out their petty jealousies on people (aircrew, customs etc) whos jobs have real power and responsibility



S78

[banana9999]

Getting a bit bored of having my bathroom items nicked of me now. Does anyone know the freezing points of Lynx deodorant and shower gel. Thinking of putting in freezer overnight and making a dash to the airport before they become liquid again.

[S78]

wouldn't work mate,

there's a sign up at staff gate at BHX stating that frozen liquids are not allowed through because they cannot be tested:hmm:



S78

[qwertyplop]

Paarmo - you are still missing the point. It's about consistancy - nothing else.

I have a 'red' pass, I am not an airport/airline employee and I am someone who has been vetted in excess of anything a security operative has or needs - this is not a state secret so I compare my experiences to when I go through to my office to when I go through as SLF on a weekly basis. I get more grief going airside to my place of work than I do as SLF getting on an aircraft.

Consistancy missing I'd say.

Conclusion - as SLF I do not register on the security operatives radar when actually that's the time I really should register but as a 'red' pass holder being searched by the holder of a lesser pass - I can be hassled and cajoled into reacting to their stupidity. So a lack of consistancy is the only conclusion I can reach.

Search me all you like - I don't really care. I care though when I am targeted for no good reason by people who know no better, who have not been properly vetted themselves and can't articulate why this happens when I ask them.

I still don't buy this rudeness thing when it comes to dealing with them - I still maintain it's a very small part of my day but what I can say is that it sticks out of my day as something completely out of proportion to the issue at hand.

And that Paarmo is most certainly down to them not doing their jobs properly and why it sticks outs like a sore thumb - many of those in the airside environment have to do their jobs properly because of legislation, licencing issues and the consequences of not doing their jobs is rather obvious. I know of no intervention by a security operative, in a UK airport, that has made the slightest bit of difference for the reasons being given now for the regimes that are operating.

I'm happy for you to educate me though.

[Farrell]

Stunning performance from the screeners at Manchester.

Police officer:
Overalls and webbing
Extendable baton
Heckler and Koch MP5
Spare clip
Leatherman
Side arm

"You can't bring that through, sir"

"Sorry? What?"

"The banana, sir. That has to stay.....and the water too."

He left it there, but stood and looked at him right in the face for probably the longest three seconds of the screener's life, then carried on through.

[Flintstone]

Now that is the funniest thing I've read all week. :O

[Biggles225]

Made my day too!

[qwertyplop]

Should have nicked him for obstruction. A well fed and lubricated (not to mention vetted/trained/motivated) police officer with a MP-5 is in the public's interest in an airport.

Paarmo - are you reading this? Does it even register?

Police Officer = effective physical protection from the forces of evil.

Security Operative on the minimum wage manning a gate to guard against police officers with bananas = a farce.

[Romeo India Xray]

You will never get through to Paarmo - Some people like to live in denial when they have burnt out all their ammo and failed to even leave a mark (so to speak).

I am also a "red" pass holder non airline/airport employed pilot, but here in LV we dont have the same lunacy that there is in the UK. Yesterday on my way throught the staff channel I was stopped by a new operative, but only so he could check my ID which was hanging the wrong way round - nothing wrong there, he then went on to wish me a nice day :D. I take it Paarmo would be distraught that we have not had a swathe of terrost actions here in LV caused by CREW (and non airline/airport crew such as ourselves (the shock and horror of non airline/airport staff being alowed airside!)).

Security in the UK is yet another example of how dire that once great country has become.

RIX

[ABO944]

After work one evening on our way back to the crewroom we had a phonecall from Ops. They asked us if we could position the aircraft from Edinburgh to Glasgow, then taxi back. Ok we said and turned about to go through security again.

I forgot I had the remains of my delicious crew snack in my bag and was promptly stopped by the big, hairy, caber-tossing security guard.

He told me I would have to leave my ski yoghurt and cheese and tomato sandwich behind .... oh and my bottle of water.

I understood the water and perhaps the yoghurt being liquidy, but the sandwich ???

I asked him about my 8 hour old sandwich (which I wasn't going to eat anyway ... ever) ... I said, surely it's not a liquid! And he told me ... "well it looks pretty soggy to me eh?"

:D

[RoyHudd]

The Security rules in UK remain pathetic, as are many of the unqualified idiots that enforce them. Hopefully the credit crunch will force a major re-think, a cutback in wasted expense on un-necessary security, and a focus on terrorist-profiling.

Or am I just dreaming?

[brakedwell]

The Security rules in UK remain pathetic, as are many of the unqualified idiots that enforce them. Hopefully the credit crunch will force a major re-think, a cutback in wasted expense on un-necessary security, and a focus on terrorist-profiling.

Or am I just dreaming?

Be careful RH, you might be accused of racism! :eek: :eek:

[Abusing_the_sky]

Paarmo is back????????:eek:

Warning: DO NOT, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES, CARRY BANANAS IN A HIGH SECURITY AREA!


Gotta tell ya, that story made my day!


Rgds,
ATS

[groundfloor]

Peter Sellers and Spike Milligan would have loved this thread..... In fact one of Uncle Rodgers niece`s / nephews should write him.

Yip getting to work in the UK is most defnitely straight out of the GOON show! Wonder if they get Hitlergrams? - Be alert for uppity aircrewz mit pathological underarms devices ja! , etc.. Obviously a top neddy with a small moustache behind all this..:p

Humour, guys and girls - just treat it as a laugh.

Perhaps Paarmo is Eccles in disguise?

[brakedwell]

Perhaps Paarmo is Eccles in disguise?


I would have said Bluebottle. ;)

[el #]

We can all have a good laugh about people like paarmo that as far we known, could be genuinely worried and unable to distinguish between threats and bananas.

The real tragedy is that none of the politicians, administrators, professional unions, consumer associations or any other part of the civil society had got the courage so far to stand up and say, hey the king is naked, stop this nonsense now.

Look at the recent mistrial for wannabe bombers. Has anything changed ?

One would think, the only thing that could help is to spread complete information on how to do really dangerous things and acts that cannot be detected. Perhaps at that point this hypocrisy would end.

[paarmo]

I really think that you are losing the plot here.This Post is not about the rules but about the rules being applied to flight crew.
If you don't like complying with the rules, get another job.
If you think the rules need to be changed then lobby your MP and ask him/her to present your objections in Parliament.
If you simply don't like the way the rules are applied at your particular airport then write to or meet to the security supervisor who trains the people at the gates.
Is this too difficult?. Are you supposedly intelligent people?
All of my life I have been dealing with people and applying compromises even when I felt that I was totally in the right. It is how people deal with life which sets them apart from other mammals.
At the end of the day the rules are there and if you comply with them to the letter as every other member of the travelling public ,me included unfortunately , has to do then you will have no reason to whinge. Get a life at least most of you are still in a job unlike some others whose firms have folded recently.

[Cessna172ppl]

One of the main reasons why pilots are checked, even though they have the safety of the aircraft in their hands, is the possibility of a bogus pilot with a uniform and fake ID getting through the net. I dont think anyone should be excluded, not even VIP's, Government Ministers, Celebrities etc. If one section of society is exempt, then they become the weakest link and open to exploitation. Submit to being searched with a smile on your face and keep your thoughts for the bar.

[paarmo]

Ignore button not working dear?

[Abusing_the_sky]

paarmo, i see you posting but no clue what you're on about - still on my ignore list, works wonders:ok:

[Foxy Loxy]

She has access to handcuffs, Paarmo...

Are you sure about that?

:E

[Duck Rogers]

Paarmo has stepped outside for a while.

[Xeque]

A very good point. Let's make it mandatory for the PM or any Cabinet Minister/MP to shuffle through the arch in smelly socks clutching their belt less trousers to stop them from falling down.
Deprived of their lethal bananas, British Rail sandwiches etc. - this cr@p could be ended in an instant.
As for the Goon Show - exploding trousers rings a bell. :)

[M609]

The security at Tromsø, Norway once stopped two armed police officers escorting a convict wearing cuffs and leg shackles. Said the S/W revolvers had to go through the scanner, as well as the cuffs/shackles.

The police complied just to get through, but the security people got some bollocking from the police later on! :E

[Piltdown Man]

So pleased were the Security Goons that they had caught a member of cabin crew with a knife in her pocket that they missed the bullet in her handbag. Lovely bollocking dished out. Sympathy? None!

PM

Oh, why was she carrying a knife and a bullet? Because a nice policeman asked her to do so. This is the first time in 16 years that I have seen a check on security. Maybe the "authorities" trust these goons as much as we do.

[MMEMatty]

I've been going through airport security every day near enough for the last two years, and can honestly say i've never found anything so unreasonable that it would constitute a risk to flight safety.

In my experience as long as your not an ar$e, the security are alright with you. Its when you start pulling out the "i'm aircrew i dont have to put up with this" that problems seem to start.

Shoes off? No problems. Belt off? Bit oo-er missus, but never mind. No water? bit of a pain, but its not the security guards decision, its DfT's. Stolen Sandwiches? Well i'm sure i can cope...

Hardly a risk to air navigation in my mind.

Matty (donning Battlefield bowler)

[aguadalte]

Can't they just understand that a Pilot doesn't need a nail cutter to CFIT?:ugh:

[blimey]

MMEMatty

I've been going through airport security every day near enough for the last two years, and can honestly say i've never found anything so unreasonable that it would constitute a risk to flight safety.


But others who fly the aeroplanes have. Therefore it is a risk to flight safety. Simple really.