Frustrated (?) pilots and security screening

[Blacksheep]

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.Nor me, but most of it is still pretty pointless.

What does infuriate me is the mindless bureaucracy behind the whole thing. I worked airside continuously from 1966 to July this year, including working with armed nuclear bombers, and have held airside security badges issued by the authorities at airports in Brunei, Malaysia, Nepal, Vietnam, Hong Kong and Belgium. Upon return to UK I cannot obtain airside security clearance for any British airport because I am a British Citizen who cannot satisfy the Disclosure Scotland rules - I haven't resided anywhere in the UK for at least five years, so they can't do a criminal records check on me. Were it necessary for me to hold airside clearance for my job I simply could not be hired.

On the other hand, were I to be from, say, Somalia, Yemen or perhaps Afghanistan, there would be no problem. Non-Brits without the necessary residential qualifications don't have to have to undergo the Disclosure Scotland process.

So what's the bloody point of it all then?

...and incidentally, how many terrorists have (prior) criminal records?

[wiggy]

Either I'm misunderstanding your point or IMHO you've been misinformed - you certainly can get airside clearance as a UK citizen who has resided outside the UK for over 5 years...

Indeed there are a fair number of non-UK national, non-UK resident workers wondering around UK aitports with legit and valid airside passes.

[Johnny767]

Reason for security checks on pilots
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.

Cessna172PPL

The simple fix is available, proper ID (biometric.) Bottom line is "the system" loves it, the way it is.

Petty power struggle.

My personal two favorite, at security, post 9-11:

1.

John: "What exactly are you looking for, maybe I can help."

Security Puke: "I can't tell you, but Anything that will allow you to TAKE OVER THE AIRPLANE"

John: I am the Captain, you moron, I am in control of the Aircraft!

2.

John: Obviously angry and miserable, going through security.

Security Puke: "You don't look happy, but, we have to keep Pilots from flying Airplanes into buildings."

John: They weren't Pilots, you idiot, they were terrorists!

[Ladusvala]

Johnny767,
I don´t think that any terrorist will fake being a pilot just in order to smuggle some youghurt or a penn knife, Therefore I see no reason to search pilots for water bottles and nail clippers. I think it would be sufficient to screen pilots for guns and bombs and I think that the vast majority of pilots would accept that level och screening, don´t you?
Most here don´t advocate that pilots shouldn´t be screened at all, they just want it to be at a more logical level.

[elgnin]

Wiggy is right. Just because you have worked outside the UK it does not mean that you cannot satisfy the regulations. One of the biggest contributors in these forums to the frustrations that come spewing out as often as they do is people passing opinion with out actually checking the facts first. Blacksheep has had a wee rant without establishing the facts. So, go find out what the regs are then come back and apologise for misleading the thread! While I am at it, although I do not doubt Blacksheeps honesty, can you see the headlines if an incident occurred as a result of a pass office accepting someones word that they have been gainfully employed out the country for 5 years.... "yes your honour, he said he was good for the previous 5 years so I issued him with his airside pass".... "ah well thats all ok then!!!!!!"

[AC-DC]

Right, a question to all of you.
What will happen if you refuse a search after the red lights started to flash and the bell started to ring? Some years ago, as a pax. I did it in AMS, the boarding was halted and Police was called. One of you doing it will have no effect, all of you doing it will make a differance.

[Johnny767]

I think it would be sufficient to screen pilots for guns and bombs

The US Pilots can carry guns, so your point is? As for the rest of the globe, what am I going to do with a gun?

Point it at myself and take control of the Aircraft?

[Abusing_the_sky]

Johnny.....

:D:D:D Sir!!!!

Rgds,
ATS

[Ladusvala]

My point was that if a terrorist is going to impersonate a pilot with fake ID etc, (or pressure a real pilot into smuggling something for him), he will not do it in order to smuggle a pennknife. But, he might do it to smuggle a gun or a bomb airside. Therefore, as I said, I think it´s sufficient to screen us pilots for bombs and guns, not nailclippers. That way security will also stop the possibility of pressuring real pilots into smuggling things that they have to hand over to terrorists airside (or else, their wife and kids will be killed).

US pilots who carry guns must surely have some kind of license for that so it will not be any more of a problem than it is today.

I know that I don´t need a gun to do harm with my aircraft, but the only argument for screening pilots that I find understandable is that pilots can be pressured into smuggling things airside. Terrorists can take a pilots family hostage and coerce the pilot into smuggling something through security and handing it over to another terrorist who is waiting inside the security zone.

If pilots weren´t screened at all, they would become a loophole that terrorists could use. Todays solution to that problem is the ridicilous screening that we now have to live with every day at work. What I´m suggesting is a more sensible solution that would make life much easier for us pilots, without creating a loophole for the terrorists. Wouldn´t that be nice enough, Johnny767?

Unfortunately, I think that we will have to accept some level of screening of pilots even if we have total control of the aircraft.

[carousel]

All searches at UK Airports are by consent, you have the right to refuse a search of yourself or your bags. Equally airport security have the right to refuse you admission airside for doing so.

[cockney steve]

[QUOTE][ Terrorists can take a pilots family hostage and coerce the pilot into smuggling something through security and handing it over to another terrorist who is waiting inside the security zone./QUOTE]

Whilst I hesitate to cross swords with the more knowledgeable posters on this thread, I really can't let the above ridiculous statement go unchallenged.

The nature of the job dictates that Flightdeck crew are of above -average intelligence, reasoning power and intellect.
You REALLY think that in the above "hostage" scenario, ANY pilot would smuggle the means to destroy @300 souls and TRUST that the ruthless fanatics would release the odd few hostages unharmed.?

:mad: :mad: make the contact airside, poke your fingers in his eyes, stamp his nuts to beaver's tails....whatever it takes...AFTER you've notified the authorities.

I'm sure that even that bunch of incompetents has some sort of "plan" in place for such an eventuality.

[thadocta]

I'm sure that even that bunch of incompetents has some sort of "plan" in place for such an eventuality. :D :ok: One of the best posts I have read in all the years I have been on this forum (even though I don't contribute very much).

Dave

[Ladusvala]

Cockney Steve, that is the only argument (terrorists coercing pilots or impersonating pilots) that i can´t defeat in a discussion with those who want pilots to be screened.
Pressuring pilots might be a ridicilous statement but I think that impersonating pilots is a more likely scenario, What do you think?

[el #]

Hi, impersonating a pilot doesn't seem as smart plan, suppose you even manage to bring on board some kind of weapon, the same is possible to do anyway, but without calling much attention as uniformed pilot crew seating as passengers surely does.

Really beside movie-like plots I don't see what would be the advantage even you manage to bring a weapon

For the 67th time, all what is asked by most people here, is just to quit bothering flight crew, namely pilots. They are among the most trusted individual in the society and should be allowed to board with all the stuff that an human person may need or like when piloting for a work. Plenty of homemade food and protein drinks ? Sure. A leatherman in case they need to fix any gizmo or hotel door ? Yes. A beauty case full of all metalling thingies and creams to take proper care of your boy? Allowed.

And then if you want my most honest opinion, the same should be applied to passengers too.

Of course pilots would need to go under scanners and detectors just like pax, security would then have the possibility of giving a second look at any person or baggage, randomly or by any criteria.

Is this too much to ask ?

[williewalsh]

Come on guys get out more and let all this rest. Its like a stuck record. It is what it is. Its only a safety issue if the crew involved are easily aroused anyway.
Stop pontificating with what ifs and harumphing about this and that. Put your Sh1t on the tray say hello and **** off to work.
:ugh:

[qwertyplop]

Who are you saying is easily aroused?

You have to impress me over dinner first, talk dirty and wear nice knickers. ;)

In any order you choose.

[AC-DC]

All searches at UK Airports are by consent, you have the right to refuse a search of yourself or your bags. Equally airport security have the right to refuse you admission airside for doing so.

Than refuse and see what will happen. If only one will that person will find him/herself out of work, if all will they will have to do something about it as aircraft can not fly without a pilot. They can ruke you and me as long as we co-operate, once we stop they have a problem.

[Atreyu]

qwertyplop, Classic!

I'm much less picky, Don't bother with dinner, and hopefully the knickers would become irrelevant after some liquid refreshment:}

Then again... :ouch:

Atreyu:ok:

[TerminalTrotter]

A few weeks ago I went through Manchester as a passenger. I had a plastic splint on my arm. I offloaded everything, shoes and belt included, and still the arch 'pinged' me. Very polite security staff, very effecient, went over me with hands and wand. I volunteered to take the splint off, no problems, all very quick. The only metal on me was press studs on the trouser pockets - not even a metal zip.

coming back, a week later, went through security at my departure airport, no 'pings', no problems. only when airside realized that I had a huge handful of change I had forgotten about still in my pocket.

Point is, given the planning that the baddies seem willing to put into their efforts, it would be very simple to test the screening at different airports and choose the one that lets you get stuff through.

[ExSp33db1rd]

.............choose the one that lets you get stuff through.


We all ( at least those with any sort of intelligence ) know that the bad guys will do exactly what they want to do, where and when they want do do it,and are just laughing at us as they bide their time. The whole thing is a monstrous insult to our intelligence, and a TOTAL waste of time. Are you LISTENING Paarmo ??

[Romeo India Xray]

I believe Duck Rogers invited Paarmo to take a little R&R away from this thread for a while, and doesn't life now seem glorious?

Briefly re-capping, all pleas to government, airport authorities and "security" providers fall on deaf ears. Why, because there is a fortune to be made for "security" companies, an illusion of the provision of safety for government (please god let this give Gordon at least ONE extra vote (Paarmo's vote perhaps), one vote, just one, it's all we ask), and i am quite sure that airport authorities have some stake or financial interest in what is going on (lest they would not let their buildings turn into the proverbial circus).

While most SLF will accept the problems associated with this farce, we as crew are being subjugated by default of our position as a captive, highly visible market (please give us Paarmo's vote).

If we as crew would only do something that would impinge negatively on votes, we would see a change and pronto. The only way to do this is by use of the (usually inept) media who we normally loath and detest, and the only way to do that is by causing a major inconvenience. I know this thread has produced some interesting ways that this could be done (surrendering the crash axe to "security" and grounding the AC, putting 99ml of urine in hand baggage and insisting they test it etc etc), the list of extreeme solutions is almost endless. What we need as operating crew is an action that we can all undertake, in unison, which is legal, prescribed as permissible and would cause major disruption. I am open to any suggestions, surely there must be something?

RIX

sidenote - Mrs RIX came back through STN as SLF a couple of days ago. Thorough handbag search which included an ornamental bird (she had forgotten to put into the checked in). Legs of said bird something like needles except about 5" long - no problem there - problem was one bottle of perfume she had forgotten to put into the clear plastic bag :ugh: Total :mad:ing IDIOTS

[Red Top Comanche]

So many security incidents? Where where all those security bods?

BBC NEWS | UK | Airports reveal security breaches (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7637738.stm)

[Sepp]

"Aviation expert David Learmount"

O...

K...

As in: "financial expert, Alistair Darling".

[ExSp33db1rd]

"Aviation expert ........."


I keep saying it ...... " X is an unkown quantity and a spurt is a drip under pressure "

[paarmo]

Duck Rogers may have asked me to go but I have not complied.

You were given a seven day thread ban which has now expired. A more permanent arrangement is always an option.

Duck


You are still missing the point of this post.Some of the stewards and stewardesses ( I think this may be a vey old fashioned and unPC way of describing some of the posters ) have only time wise as much or as little formal training and vetting as some of the people you are complaining about who are enforcing the rules with varying degrees of sucess. Please face reality. Would you allow some of the security staff through the screening points without checking them ?. No I thought not.

[Donkey497]

Paarmo Would you allow some of the security staff through the screening points without checking them ?. No I thought not.

Paarmo, I have to tell you that LHR did on at least one occasion last year. Friday 2nd November, Domestic security, around 0745.

A group of six workmen carrying tools only two of whom were wearing visible passes were waved through without x-ray of the toolboxes, (2 gallon) paint cans or (gallon) white spirit containers they were carrying, despite several knives being clearly visible in the toolboxes, no questions were asked as to where they were going, or paperwork showing they were authorised to head airside.

Likewise a group of three security staff [1M, 2F] were waved through. Both groups came through a side entrance, skipping most of the queues which were backing up to the boarding pass check. Both groups passed through the arches and naturally set them off, but were not searched.

Having already been threatened with either being denied passage airside or arrest for attempting to reason with the security staff at boarding pass check. I did not complain about this at the time, but reported it when I arrived at EDI. The response I got was that LHR security tends to make its own rules for staff screening and that passing staff through whilst passengers waited might just be an attempt to reduce the queue.

All that most contributors on this thread are asking for is consistency in the application of common security screening, tempered by the significant application of common sense in the generation (and application) of said rules.

For what it's worth, what nearly got me arrested was [after checking & being assured at the check-in desk that it was OK] pointing out that there was less likelihood of me having been able to tamper with the contents of my sealed duty free bag, complete with visible receipt from the KUL duty free shop than the guy in front of me who had exactly the same thing except that he had flown in from FRA the night before & overnighted at a nearby hotel whereas I had arrived less than 90 minutes earlier via AUH. However, the jobsworth checking boarding passes & duty free was holding tight to the line that it's OK for transfer passengers to check in carrying a sealed duty free bag if they've come from inside the EU, but not from outside.

[ExSp33db1rd]

We all ( at least those with any sort of intelligence ) know that the bad guys will do exactly what they want to do, where and when they want do do it,and are just laughing at us as they bide their time. The whole thing is a monstrous insult to our intelligence, and a TOTAL waste of time. Are you LISTENING Paarmo ??




PRECISELY !!! so why the f**k are we bothering with all this crap ? Just how did this lot get past the security that give crews such an unnecessary hard time ? Obviously ...... they weren't daft enough to get caught with nail clippers and 120 ml of aftershave in a plastic bag !! :ugh: .................Sheer lunacy.


Reported by AVWeb today ........

AIRPORT SECURITY ABROAD ALLOWS IMPERSONATOR IN COCKPIT (mhtml:{A8801541-C20D-4B39-9239-9F7AB9E87E69}mid://00000046/!x-usc:http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1220-full.html#198872)
An Egyptian expatriate entered the cockpit of an aircraft at Kuwait International Airport by impersonating a Brazilian pilot, "failed to operate the plane," and moved on to impersonate a Brazilian engineer using the identity card he found in the first aircraft's cockpit, according to Arab Times Online. However the suspect's second attempt was thwarted by an employee, who, when asked by the suspect about the location of an aircraft bound for Luxor, noticed that the man bore no resemblance to the ID card he carried. The employee called security, who promptly arrested the suspect. Authorities are now investigating how the suspect managed to slip past a "high security" area to reach the first aircraft's hangar. The case has won personal attention from Kuwait's Minister of Interior and strict measures are expected against employees who "are found to have been negligent in their duty." More... (mhtml:{A8801541-C20D-4B39-9239-9F7AB9E87E69}mid://00000046/!x-usc:http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1220-full.html#198872)

and

GERMAN POLICE RAID KLM FLIGHT, ARREST TERROR SUSPECTS (mhtml:{A8801541-C20D-4B39-9239-9F7AB9E87E69}mid://00000046/!x-usc:http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1220-full.html#198870)
Two suspected terrorists on a KLM flight out of Cologne, Germany, allegedly intent on waging jihad, were pulled from their flight before it departed for Amsterdam, Friday. .....................

[Ladusvala]

Paarmo, you only mention stewards and stewardesses, does that mean that you think pilots could be treated to a more sensible security screening?

Most pilots here just want to get rid of the ridicilous security rules that don´t allow them to bring nail clippers or 120 ml after shave, they don´t advocate completely open doors for crew. Don´t you understand that or don´t you want to understand?

[cwatters]

Obviously when pilots can prove their identity securely then all this nonsense will stop :)

[ExSp33db1rd]

cwatters

Obviously when pilots can prove their identity securely then all this nonsense will stop [IMG]

No it won't.

I was able to prove my identity securely some 40 yrs ago, way before 9/11, so the ability was there if anyone chose to implement it. Trouble is, the standard of the security checking process is not conducive to positive control. However good security staff might be ( is that an oxymoron ! ) they get bored and take the easiest, simplest, way out to complete their shift and go home, knicking nail clippers and measuring aftershave is easier than proper security.

One of my colleagues made a mock I.D. card with a picture of his dog, it was months before a smarter than the average security guard noticed ! No adverse results in those days, just a bit of humour, but it was an early objection to 'the system' as it was being applied ( not the rationale behind it ). Checking the crew bus the security guard would just stand at the front and make sure some 16 or so cards were swinging from uniforms, never bothering to check any one of them, hence Rover made many trips airside ! To their credit, the occasional guard would ask the Captain " are these all your crew " ? which really was all that was necessary.

Recently, staff at XXX ( a U.S.A. location ) realised that nobody had ever checked staff from the staff car park on a bus that then went Airside, ever since 9/11, staff on holiday, not in uniform even, parked their car and were taking their suitcases with them airside first, before entering the terminal to proceed to the counters. ( my source is the Press, but I was there at the time and it caused some embarrassment however the facts might have been manipulated. )

The record is getting stuck in the groove - the whole thing is a farce, lunatics running the asylum.

[paarmo]

The rules are simple and well advertised to all airside personell. If you see a breach of security then report it through the correct channels at your particular airport.
Don't come on here crowing about how clever you were to see this breach. Do something about it.
Don't try and bully me Duck. If you don't like debate.......the promoting and testing various viewpoints around a contentious subject...then close the site down to all but card carrying flightdeck crew.
This is what has happened to the Labour Party and before it to the Conservative Party. No one dares to have an opinion which does not strictly follow the Party line.
I really think some of you should come into the real world and see how it is rather than whine about taking your shoes off as you pass through a security check point. Think of it as going to the Mosque and grin and bear it.

[fireflybob]

I really think some of you should come into the real world

Whenever I see/hear this comment I know that the person who states it is talking about their perception of the world!

[ExSp33db1rd]

Think of it as going to the Mosque and grin and bear it.


No.

I don't (won't ) go into Mosques, either. Are you going to try to make me ?

[hotmetal]

If the rules are so obviously sensible why is the UK the only country in Europe applying them to pilots? All the rest can see the logic repeated here ad nauseum.

[ExSp33db1rd]

........ad nauseum


The whole thing makes me sick ! :ok:

I'm not even crew anymore, but I do sympathise and go ballistic myself as a pax !

[Scratch Pad]

paarmo

As a mere observer of your antics in here I seem to recall that your recent disappearance came immediately after you inferred that another member required the smell of gin on her breath to attract a man so there's no room for you on the high ground if you're going to pick a fight with the mods. Not once have I seen them take issue with your 'on topic' comments.

If you're losing an argument and resort to personal insults you deserve all you get.

[Out Of Trim]

I couldn't believe my eyes this morning - I passed through the LGW Concorde House Crew Security point and came face to face with one of the so called BAA Male Security Persons complete with Full Mohican hair-do and of course the obligatory ear-ring.

ie. Head shaved all over apart from a central tuft of hair from front to back. He looked somewhat like a punk-rocker..

A most incongruous sight as he searched a Captain that triggered the arch..

My god, what a state of affairs - You couldn't make it up! :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[Check Mags On]

debate.......the promoting and testing various viewpoints

Think of it as going to the Mosque and grin and bear it.

paarmo for someone who is taking the moral high ground. Your statements say a little about your attitude to people who's thoughts or beliefs vary from your own. I'm sure that the billion or so Muslims of this world (of which I am not one) would find your statement offensive.

Eid Mubarak

[clearfinalsno1]

I couldn't believe my eyes this morning - I passed through the LGW Concorde House Crew Security point and came face to face with one of the so called BAA Male Security Persons complete with Full Mohican hair-do and of course the obligatory ear-ring.

ie. Head shaved all over apart from a central tuft of hair from front to back. He looked somewhat like a punk-rocker..

A most incongruous sight as he searched a Captain that triggered the arch..

My god, what a state of affairs - You couldn't make it up!

Bristol the same, which I passed through last night. It was very quiet, maybe only 50 people in the whole departure lounge. The cabin search area was virtually deserted. The few Security staff were huddled around in a gaggle at the back of the conveyor belt as if waiting for something interesting looking to open - a great job for nosy parkers. A Vicky Pollard lookalike member of staff started barking at a passenger who was patiently waiting to "come through" the x-ray scanner, despite the fact that she was not visible to the passenger and had her back to them ! She was indeed chatting and giggling with the Alpha Male of the security group - one who's neck was covered in tattoes of spider webs and the word "sky" - perhaps a pun of some sort !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[generalspecific]

I do a lot of flying over water in those things with the wing that flings (most on this site believe them an affront against god I know).

To get to the start I use commercial airlines and in the hand carry I have my survival vest complete with co2 inflation cylander and pockets stuffed with Epirbs, hand held vhf in a bag etc etc. Nothing plain dumb like flares or a knife, but I am still amazed that I have never once been stopped for a search.

I have been stopped for a search over slightly too large tubes of toothpaste etc, but never the vest..

I have always expected to have to ddeal with the compressed gas cylander on the banned list v but this thing is certified for flight to flight levels by every agency known to man argument but, nada...

May be the monkeys can tell spot the combination of the insides of an epirb, a vhf and an inflation cylander and conclude that I am bona fide ...

[LurkerBelow]

Perhaps there is a lighter side to all of this...

This person has decided to try to make light of the whole idea of the airport security theatre and turn it into perfomance art:

Airport 'X-ray art' courts TSA trouble | NetworkWorld.com Community (http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/33471)

Taking this one stage further, an idea for a christmas present
for the frequent fliers would be a light steel sheet with letters made from fridge magnet material (lead foil covered perhaps) so that you could compose your "message of the day" to the baggage screeners...

[hawkeye]

It never ceases to amaze me that some otherwise technically proficient aircrew are as gullible as the general public in believing that airport security offers a defence against terrorists. Do any on this site seriously believe that the boys from Hereford could not get weapons of some kind through security and on to an aircraft; and if they can so can the terrorist.

The only thing preventing a terrorist outrage is the fact that no government will back them with the resources to put together a viable operation for fear of the consequences. The Taliban were the last to offer a safe haven and look where that got them.

[manrow]

From another perspective - maybe aircrew should be delighted that the security checks they suffer are so random that there is no pattern for the intending 'terrorists' to follow?

Has to be a bonus surely?

[hawkeye]

No matter how random the boys from Hereford will get through. Get 6 pilots together and work out how to get through security. After a couple of hours you would have a viable plan plus several back ups. Don't you think the terrorists would embark on similar exercises?

[shortfinals]

One notorious passenger has words about what pax put up with, and what a sham the process is:
Airport security: why it makes grown men cry - Learmount (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/learmount/2008/10/airport-security-why-it-makes.html)

[Sepp]

Whilst I hate to quote Mr. 'Aviation' Learmount

... of course, the passenger encounters the ultimate proof of what a charade the overall security policy for airports is once he/she gets airside. You can buy a large glass bottle of duty-free liquor to carry with you. Large glass bottles, as members of street gangs know, when broken are truly fearsome weapons...

plus

..The duplicity of the policymaking government departments who know this full well is absolutely breathtaking...

That's it, in a nutshell, really.

:ugh:

[Mr Pilot 2007]

While I agree there is a need for security screening I believe it has gone way over the top for Aircrew.

My take on this is they are 'Building themselves an empire'.

Over the top screening, inciting paranoiya. Over justifying there existance so governments pour more money into their expanding industry.

The head of security for each country and each airport will be on the same level as CEOs salaries.

If their salaries arnt as high as a wide bodied Captains yet, it soon will be.

Check and balances need to be implemented before their empire is too costly for the airline industry to swallow.
Already many airports have a 'security charge' included on every ticket. This charge will only increase to pay the securities 'executives' and middle managements salaries.

As the salaries of airline pilots are reducing, it may be time for me to retire and join the security management where I could earn four times as much as I am as a wide-bodied captain.

[belfrybat]

Kind of a heads-up.
Airport baggage screener charged with stealing passengers' stuff ? The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/14/tsa_screener_theft/)

[ExSp33db1rd]

Published in our local NZ newspaper today - how often have we to repeat the last phrase !!

Anyone who has travelled overseas since 9/11 has been subjected to ever-increasing security checks, writes Claire from St Heliers. "The list includes not leaving your bag unattended and not to carry any bag/object given to you by a stranger. Imagine our shock, horror as we checked into Air NZ at San Francisco for a flight to NZ only to be approached by two elegant, well-spoken women asking if we could take a very large bag back to be given to a relative of theirs on arrival. We refused and told the receptionist at check-in. I don't know what we expected - alarm bells to be rung, security descending on the miscreants who would then be taken away and searched along with their very over-weight bag but no, nothing. Just a raised eyebrow from the receptionist. Airline security is a joke."

[fireflybob]

Just been on a short break to Prague. The security check at Prague was polite and efficient but I watched in amazement as the passenger ahead of me had his full bottle of hooch take off him, followed by me that had my shaving foam confiscated.

Can anyone tell me that all the products sold in terminal buildings are "screened"?

I now say that if aliens landed from outer space they would not believe how we now conduct our lives!

[whyisthat]

This thread has been around for some time now, and most of the comment is valid (Parmmo excepted).

Question really is, can it change. Answer, No.

Why not. Well think about it, why is it happening. I think two main reasons:

Too many people are making money from the circus, and

It's a suitable backside covering exercise for politicians.

You might ask could proffesional aircrew influence a change of goverment stance. Answer no.

Why not, again too many people making money, and importantly, no vehicle from which to launch a suitable cohesive process to achieve any worthwhile result.

What do I mean. Well I used to fly in Europe, and was a Balpa member for some time, even was a company rep for a while. It very soon became apparent that those at the top of the Balpa scheme of things have their own agenda, very much their own. One of them is becomming an MEP.

Therefore rocking the boat by representing pilots views on contentious subjects like security would not be in one's own best interests now would it. Much much better to form a "working group" and waste a bit of time and money. Why ?, we are intelligent, and all know what the damn problem is.

One of these gentlemen went as far as to state in a publication that a relaxation in the current security regime would need a more stringent pre airside ID card issue, security check. This was deemed unacceptable as "some current pilots may lose there employment due to not being able to fulfill the more stringent requirement". So when is a security risk a security risk ??. And what do the vast majority of those being hassled by the current regime think of that ?.

I guess that in many other countries where pilots are represented by "proffesionals", the highest levels ( non pilots ) of those organisations have similar sets of problems.

I am no longer a Balpa member, and I really do not believe that the security hassles we face are ever going to change.

In the last 2 weeks both LHR and LAX have been almost farcical, you can only put up with it and laugh afterwards. It is just not worth getting agitated over.

[marcopolosnap]

"Too many people are making money from the circus, and It's a suitable backside covering exercise for politicians."

whyisthat - You hit the nail square on the head.

[paarmo]

Is it 1st Officer and co pilot? Is it head of cabin crew? Is it all cabin crew? Is it the engineer called to sort out your engine problems? Is it the cabin cleaners or the toilet emptier? Is it the refueller?
You have to draw a line somewhere and the line at the moment and for the forseeable future is all persons accessing airside.
As for the earlier quips about strange haircuts on security staff it seems like a throwback to my father and the Beatles haircuts.Fortunately ( or unfortunately for the security industry) we are all different and if someone wants to wear his hair differently to yours why should he be any less intelligent or less equipped to do his job. He should be easier to complain about when he overexercises his authority as he should be easily identifiable.

[Nashers]

is that an admission for where you get your simple minded comments from? i guess its all in the genes....

im not sure if it has been brough up on before, but ive been following this thread for a while now and no one has brough it up. does anyone know what exactly happens to all the stuff that gets taken off us at security check points? would be intresting to find out...

[Xeque]

Pretty simple really.
All the good stuff like expensive perfumes, aftershaves etc. either gets pocketed by the Security Neanderthals themselves or (as we have seen herein) sold on e-Bay.
All the factory sealed stuff undoubtedly ends up on the shelves of the local 'open all hours' to the mutual financial benefit of all concerned. Who knows? It might even move only a few yards to end up in the air-side shops where flight crew and passengers are expected to replace that which has just been stolen from them at three times the price.
Who says larceny doesn't pay.

[Dont Hang Up]

Can anyone tell me that all the products sold in terminal buildings are "screened"?



I am very impressed at how Boots and the like manage it.

The dubious products they sell landside appear identical in every respect of labelling and bottling to the chemically certified stuff they sell airside.

The miracle of distribution control that allows them to achieve this without any confusion or error is a marvel of the modern age.

:D Sirs I salute you.:D

[paarmo]

If you have any evidence that this happens xeque then give it to the airport Police.Another urban myth I fear.
As for the products delivered airside I think you will find they are supplied in the same tamper evident packaging which all other food and drink products are delivered in nowadays. Another urban myth that you can somehow gain access to one bottle of water and place it on the shelves.

[hippotamus]

If I may add my inane ramblings to this thread.....
has anyone tried to prosecute whatever authorities are responsible for confiscating our highly dangerous bottles of water, for unsafe disposal of hazardous chemicals.

When i worked in a lab , you had very strict guidelines on disposal of hazardous chemicals. Presumably these confiscated items must be treated as hazardous chemicals , because if they weren't hazardous then there would be no need to confiscate.

Big fines for chucking toxic waste in the landfill :)

[ExSp33db1rd]

where do you draw the line?


by Paarmo

I was 'moderated' out - my description of Paarmo was obviously unacceptable. I make no apology.

You 'draw the line' at the Flight Crew, and Engineers. If they can't be trusted to look after their aeroplanes, then we should all go home and contemplate our navels in some cave.

Othewise - wot's the point.

[max_cont]

Wrong paarmo. NOT another urban myth.

My other half who works at LHR was asked if she wanted a Harrods teddy bear from the confiscated bin. The security staff were helping themselves to items at the time.

Reporting security is a waste of time. When she reported security for an inappropriate pat down, the BAA ignored three witnesses and closed ranks. They refused to view the security tapes of the incident because it would apparently infringe the security gnomes Human Rights. This was about a year ago. Several of her colleagues had been asked by this female security gnome to go to a room and open their blouses. The incident that triggered the complaint could only be described as an assault and did not conform to security pat down procedure.

IMO the police should have been called, but then I’m willing to be a right royal pain to any jumped up SOB that believes they can get away with anything.

[ExSp33db1rd]

.......but then I’m willing to be a right royal pain to any jumped up SOB that believes they can get away with anything.


Go for the jugular, don't mess about.

[eastern wiseguy]

I think you will find they are supplied in the same tamper evident packaging which all other food and drink products are delivered in nowadays.

So if I pitch up with similarly TAMPER EVIDENT PACKAGING why is mine thrown away?

[Nashers]

working in club security, if ever you get a pat down that you think was a bit too much, report it to management. if they dont look at it, go to to police. simple as that.

against human rights is bull sh!t as the CCVT is there to protect the customers and satff, not just staff.

if anyone is in that sort of situation, take the persons details down from their badge if they dont give it to you themselves, THEN call the police. if they see you calling to cops, they suddnly get called somewhere else and you wont see them again. if they have their badge hidden then inform the police of this as well so the security staff can face a 5K fine ontop of charges. the employer will also face big bills which means more costly for the airport.

as ive written in previous posts, the security staff that work in airports are a bunch of muppets. take them to to cleaners as they clean you out when you go through security. whenever i go through heathrow i make it a point to see they do their job right and realy give them a piece of my mind if not. when they start to stand up forthemselves, i let them know exactly what they can do and what they cant. alwase shuts them up.

oh it also works with parking attandents, another evil to get rid off.

rant over.

[Xeque]

IMO the police should have been called, but then I’m willing to be a right royal pain to any jumped up SOB that believes they can get away with anything.
Perhaps the answer is here. Could aircrew not insist that a police officer be close by to be called in as soon as an incident occurs? This could then transcend to passengers so that their rights could be respected and protected too.

[hotmetal]

Once again...

From the Sexual Offences Act 2003

>>>3 Sexual assault

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ExSp33db1rd]

See new thread - Security Theatre.

[paarmo]

Max cont..I am struggling to understand why a "Arrods" bear should be in the seizure bin as a result of the current regulations. Even so if this did happen then the people to contact are the airport Police.Similarly with the complaint of indecent assault. It is symptomatic of our society nowadays that no one seems to want to stand up for what is right.If you feel that a crime has been committed then it is your duty as a citizen to report it.We are filled to the limit with citizens rights and the so called Human Rights Act but people fail to mention the duties of citizens of this Country to assist in upholding the law.As an aside the excuse for not viewing CCTV footage under the Human Rights Act is totally and inexcuseably wrong.Again report the matter to the airport Police and let them prosecute the offenders if the evidence is there. No one is above the law.
Speedbird If you can't express your views without personal attacks then I feel you should withdraw from the fray. The further thread you mentioned is not about aircrew being searched under the existing regulations but about the regulations themselves and even then it appears to be based on U.S. experiences.
Nashers..bit of a sweeping statement that everyone who works in airport security is a muppet. I am sure that there are some very conscientious and capable people as there are in any other field of work. The problem as always is that no one sees these as they are usually unobtrusive and efficient.

[eastern wiseguy]

And the tamper evident packaging...or do you just ignore questions you cannot answer?

[paarmo]

Question....was the liquid you were taking airside above the regulation limit? Answer I believe is yes.
The tamper evident packaging is not just the single bottle but the whole shrink wrapped consignment which is recieved from the warehouse.
If you go to your local cash and carry and buy anything in bulk you will see what the whole package looks like.
I have never said that the regulations on accessing airside as an individual were defensible just that they are in place and as such ALL persons accessing airside should be treated as equals.
The problems arise when some people feel that they are too important or indispensible to follow simple and well advertised rules because they feel that they themselves would never engage in terrorist acts.
It's a bit like self certification of wages to get a huge mortgage and look what has happened.

[coldair]

Interesting article in todays Times newspaper;

Replica bombs beat Gatwick security checks - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4969429.ece)

From The Sunday Times

October 19, 2008


Replica bombs beat Gatwick security checks




Steven Swinford


div#related-article-links p a, div#related-article-links p a:visited {color:#06c;}Replica bombs were smuggled past security staff in hand luggage during a safety inspection at Britain’s second busiest airport.
Staff at Gatwick failed to identify artificial explosives carried by undercover transport inspectors from Brussels even though one device was allegedly identified as suspicious by X-ray scanners.
The device was apparently handed back to the purported terrorist because the person carrying out the screening did not realise what had been found, according to an airport source.
The shortcomings high-lighted by the European commission’s inspection this month will be tested again this week in a follow-up audit.
Sources at Gatwick claim the work of security staff is being hampered by the need to keep queues to a minimum.
Under rules introduced in March, BAA, the owner of Gatwick, can be fined up to £17m a year if passengers are consistently forced to queue for more than five minutes for security checks.
An airport source said: “Staff are under massive pressure to get people through queues and can easily miss things.
“In one case [during the recent inspection], a replica bomb was flagged up on screen, the bag searched and then handed back to the inspector because they didn’t know what it was. There is so much focus on looking for liquids that they seem to be forgetting the basics.”
The source said screening staff were also being distracted by virtual tests, known as threat image projection, which involve a computer superimposing an image of a banned item on the screen as baggage goes through. “They are spending so much time looking for these virtual items that they are not focusing on those in the real world.”
The incident is not the first time security at Britain’s airports has been found wanting. In 2000, inspectors managed to get through security at Manchester and Stansted airports with fake guns and bombs.
Experts claim that explosives can often be difficult to detect. “Because explosives are organic they are difficult to distinguish during the x-ray,” said Norman Shanks, a former head of security at BAA.
“Staff have to look instead for smaller parts, such as the timer, wire and detonator which can be very difficult to spot. We really need to be looking at a new generation of X-rays to help check for explosive devices.”
A BAA spokesman confirmed the inspection had taken place, but refused to comment on whether it had failed to detect replica bombs. “We regularly work with European Union and British government inspectors to rigorously test security processes and staff to continuously improve our procedures,” he said.
The European commission refused to discuss the findings of the inspection.

[groundfloor]

Time to replace the Ministry of Silly Walks with the Ministry of Silly Security and my vote is for - Bluebottle

[EatMyShorts!]

Question: Is it correct that security-staff must ask the one to be searched (tap down) before even touching this person? If yes, where can I find that rule, I would like to print it and show it to them the next time they give me ****!

[ExSp33db1rd]

Paarmo said ..........


.................and even then it appears to be based on U.S. experiences.



and why not, they started it !!

My comments on the TSA would also be 'moderated' out, and that would be a Corporate attack not a Personal one.

I'm happy to withdraw, 'there's none so blind as those who don't want to see '

Wasting my time.

[max_cont]

Paarmo I don’t know why the bear was in the bin either…perhaps it was a lost & found item and was in there because they couldn’t leave it on the x-ray machine belt. The bin was just handy. What I do know is that it did happen because I asked my other half about the incident before posting the details.

The assault also took place and she was very upset about it. The “Dyke” (her words) made her feel dirty and powerless. She was made to hold her ID above her head with her arms and legs spread eagled while this creature got her jollies by groping her. The rest of the gnomes watched, grinning like idiots.

A manager from her (my other half) employer was called and despite having three witnesses the BAA was difficult, refused to give the details of the offender and obstructed the investigation. As I stated, I would have called the police and made a formal complaint of assault. I didn’t believe the bit about human rights and would have insisted that this went all the way. The police are obliged to investigate allegations of this type. However, it didn’t happen to me and was not my decision

[brakedwell]

How reassuring to see Security at Gatwick (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4969429.ece) is working well.

[el #]

Actually, when failures are found in the "security system", that is welcomed by all parts in the system itself, because it creates another reason for pouring more money in the system itself (that clearly is flawed and cannot be fixed).

As the article mentions, they are already looking for next generation scanners, that are certainly more expensive, require re-training, so self-perpetuating the system.

I quote below a post that I summarize very well what is the real state of things, and I will do the same everytime someone pops up defending this crazyness that we're subject to due to inept politicians and greedy administrators.

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/282544-frustrated-pilots-security-screening-53.html#post4465627

[geo7E7]

Try Manchester airport....PIC or a nominated crew (i.e First Officer) to supervise the loading of ALL crew checked-in baggages onto the bulk cargo after the security checks...now that's a bit TOO MUCH I'd say....:ugh:

[hotmetal]

Question: Is it correct that security-staff must ask the one to be searched (tap down) before even touching this person? If yes, where can I find that rule, I would like to print it and show it to them the next time they give me ****!

Well if you're in France I don't know what the law is but in the UK the question that is more appropriate is where is it written down that they have the right to search you against your will? Obviously they don't. It has to be by consent. They are not police or customs officers. They are just airport staff like you. Do you have a right to start patting sombody down uninvited? The same laws apply. Of course if you want to proceed into the restricted zone you may need to comply with their requests.

[EatMyShorts!]

Hi,

sorry for my late answer. Ok, as they are not police, they have the same rights/restrictions as anyone else. But still, is there a document somewhere having it in black and white that it has to be in consent? I don't mind "being searched", I just want them to ask me first, this is our damn right!

[rigpiggy]

May I search You? No you may wand me and will ask permission prior to touching me anywhere.

[CALB756]

TSA likely to ease restrictions on liquids in 2009 - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2008-10-27-tsa-liquids_N.htm)

[hotmetal]

Will it catch on in the UK? And will crew still be seen as a special high risk group needing special restrictions? Knowing the way this country is I will believe it when I see it!

[OCB]

:eek:

I have just finished reading the entire thread from #1. I'm speechless.

It's reinforced my attitude that the UK - like the US - just isn't worth visiting by air. Exception for the UK being by light aircraft and into a confirmed GA friendly airfield.

I have to applaud the professionalism that crews have, to put up with the nonsense. I would have snapped a long time ago. Then again, I'm just a GA bod who only flies for fun - and rarely read this forum (but chanced upon this thread).

I have airside passes for a couple of international airports (the kind that a certain low cost Irish operator flies into). As a foreign national, their background checks would have been cursory.I don't want to draw any attention to GA - so suffice to say reading the adolescent rantings of a certain couple of persistent trolls had my ghast completely flabbered.

Some pretty hilarious stories though. :ok:

[manrow]

Even GCHQ agrees with you all guys!

Public Service - ID cards will not prevent terrorism (http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=7510)

[wheresmyelephant]

would it not be possible to use the media to get the security problem addressed? for example "airline passengers at risk of burning inferno fireball due to pilots being harrassed by security".

[Superpilot]

People 'can't wait for ID cards'

BBC NEWS | Politics | People 'can't wait for ID cards' (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7712275.stm)

"I believe there is a demand, now, for cards - and as I go round the country I regularly have people coming up to me and saying they don't want to wait that long" Jacqui Smith

:hmm:

[fireflybob]

and as I go round the country I regularly have people coming up to me and saying they don't want to wait that long" Jacqui Smith


You cannot be serious!! Which planet is she on?

[Xeque]

You cannot be serious!! Which planet is she on?

Planet Fox :hmm:

[llondel]

It's the same one where she walks around late at night looking for kebab shops, isn't it?

Realistically, how many people get to go up to government ministers and ask for an ID card?

Then again, she failed to mention all those who would have said that no way were they ever going to have an ID card.

[wiggy]

Surely in this day and age you'd need an ID card to get anyway near a Government minister in the first place.....me thinks she's talking BS...

She is sounding spookily like the "Commissar Smith" oft quoted in "Private Eye".......

"..Objections from old, out-moded and old-fashioned liberal theorists must be ignored in these new and dangerous circumstances. How can Comrades ever hope to be free unless they are under 24-hour surveillance?"

I must get out more....

[lplsprog]

Actually I was told by security that they have to get your permission (PAX or Crew) to do a body search however if you refuse you will be either wand searched or not allowed to proceed into the restricted area. Just imagine the chaos if all crew refused to be searched!!!:}

[moist]

Just try what I do - pretend that it excites me.
It doesn't last long - sadly!!! Hehehehe :D :D :D

[drdexter1975]

It's just dumb to suggest that ANYONE should be exempt from secruity screening - I'm glad airside security at most major airports is NOT in the hands of a mere fellow pilot!

[Nashers]

me thinks drdexter1975 has not thought about reading more of this thread and just assumed pilots dont want to go through security....

assume- when you make an ASS of U not ME

reading his post on companies paying for type ratings seems to suggest he has no aviation knowledge either....

is this parmos brother?

[call100]

Jacqui Smith is a very dangerous person. The truth appears to evade anything she says.
However, it must be understood that the NID has nothing to do with security. It is purely about control. The Home Office officials in charge of implementing the Scheme have actually stated that it has nothing to do with Security, at meetings held with them.
Can I suggest that the ID issue be discussed in the existing thread to keep it concentrated and leave this one to security frustrations?
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/341720-balpa-against-id-cards-tuc-congress-8.html
To add to the 'permission' debate...When transiting the Staff gates at work the security guards always ask politely if they want to do a pat down. I said no one day and was just told (politely) that I would not be allowed any further.
They must have your permission to physically search you.

[S78]

One of my colleagues has heard that Stansted staff gate security now have cubicles in which they can conduct strip searches:eek:

Can anyone confirm/deny this?

If it is true, what's their legal basis for this? or is it by consent?




S78

[paarmo]

Only Police and Customs can strip search and even then in restricted circumstances. NO private security firm can strip search even with consent.
Sounds like a load of b******s.

[carousel]

There have always been cubicles at Stansted they are there for pax who request a private search of bag or body. Also if a ADM activation cannot be resolved by over the clothing pat down, and of course always by concent.

[nuclear weapon]

Having travelled through heathrow regularly for over fourteen years I can say the searches have become ridiculous. At peak hours it causes delays and i no longer look forward to travelling simply because of this. While no one disputes the fact that these checks have to be carried out there are better ways to do this. At heathrow after going through the first check point there is another one for shoes only why not do both together.

[Xeque]

I've said this before. If you keep to the right after passing through passport control you can avoid the pointless shoe check - in Terminal 3 at any rate.

[Red Top Comanche]

Some airlines just let you pay more to avoid all the security. Certainly the case in the Cayman Islands. When a near riot ensued because some passengers were going through unchecked, we were told they had "paid for an upgrade". Presumably terrorists can pay more to get their goods onboard unchecked.

[Fliegenderflieger]

Almost everybody feels "disturbed", many of us are sick to death because of this behavior at the security gate.
Almost every day i hear storys from colleagues.
But, everybody is going every duty day trough this gate.
Just a few, worldwide, refuse this "checks".
SO, EVERYBODY - STOP THE SHI* GOSSIP
DO SOMETHING OR SHUT UP AND DO YOUR JOB ! :ugh: http://1.1.1.4/bmi/static.pprune.org/images/icons/icon8.gif

PS: I hate this checks and i speak up.

[call100]

http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/goodpost.gif

[Romeo India Xray]

I have made no secret of my disdain for the joke that manifests itself as "security" in the UK. Now I have hope that things are going to improve.

2 weeks ago I was SLF out of EMA, in uniform, first thing in the morning rush. Put my bag through the scanner and the operator brought it to a grinding halt, pointing his finger at the screen. "Whats that?" as he was pointing to my two mini maglites and glasses case. A gentleman of a few years more than I was standing behind the operator - he took one look at the screen and said "thats a couple of maglites and glasses case". He then had a quick conversation with me about how useful he found the mini maglites before he had been made redundant as an engineer. Nice guy, professional, polite and friendly. It is just a crying shame that they can't all be like that.

RIX

[JRR]

Have you lads ever heard of a pilot hijacking his own plane?? I havn´t.


56 protesters on the rwy at Stansted today :D

[eastern wiseguy]

56 protesters on the rwy at Stansted today

Hope they didn't bring drinks or yoghurt with them!!

[Nashers]

so busy trying to protect the people inside the aircrafts that they cant protect the bloody aircrafts!!!!

another slap in the face for the water bottle thiefs....

[Danny]

Thread closed because, once again, many people who visit this website are singularly unable to differentiate between "a professional pilots" website and "an airline/aviation/flying" website. It only takes one 'anorak' to divert the topic onto issues involving 'passenger' searches and the thread is a waste of time ona "Professional Pilots" website. :ugh:

As a reminder to everyone, just because something involves airports, aircraft or anything that uses airsapce does not mean that it automatically has a right to be posted on here. There are individual forums for discussing issues that relate to airline passengers, airports, routes or any of the myriad of issues that seem to get those with a passion for aviation, but are not professional pilots, into a froth and all moist.

Please leave staff security alone of you have an urge to discuss passenger security. Now that you've contaminated another thread, enough is enough!