Frustrated (?) pilots and security screening

[Canada1]

:) Hello, I'm a new contributor. I was just wondering if anyone's heard anything about the Australian Captain who refused to remove his shoes at Darwin Airport last week (June). He'd set off the alarms and wouldn't take off his shoes. He made his way onto the plane apparently, without doing so. I heard another pilot from the same airline did the same thing in Manila, which sparked an internal investigation by his airline.

This was put to me as, pilots think security screening has gone too far and that they are more concerned about security than anyone. The Howard Government is introducing legislation to exempt APEC delegates from the lags rules, for this September's conference in Sydney and pilots want the similar exemptions.

Then there's the concern that the lags rule will soon apply on all domestic routes.

Thank you.

[Capt Claret]

The lags rule is?

[PA38]

Two of the people detained are Doctors, highly trained and intelligent people just like Pilot’s. So why should anyone be above security checks...

[TopBunk]

Unlike anyone else, pilots are going to go into the flight deck. From there, we don't need anything other than our hands to kill everyone on board, so taking our 110ml of water(*) of us isn't going to change anything, nor is getting us to take our shoes etc off.

The world is too PC and has a lack of joined up thinking.

(*) substitute whatever you like here.

[F4F]

... 'cause sitting up front I'll just wiggle the stick or control column and we all buy the farm, no need for no weapon of sorts, thanks :eek:

We are above security checks by definition :uhoh:



live 2 fly 2 live

[beamer]

Easiest way to deal with the problem is to put a bloody smile on your face - I know that some security personnel think that making pilots look small is good sport and yes I know some of the 'frisking' can be a little 'too friendly' but bearing in mind recent events put up with it and get on with the job.

[A-3TWENTY]

Seems they are going to remove the axe and the control column from the cockpits for security reasons...

How can one be so stupid ????????

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

[Pidge]

Are you aware of what pilots do for a living PA38?

You can strip a pilot to his birth suit, prod them in every orifice (I know one or two who would enjoy that) and send him to the aircraft and he still has his hands on large metal object packed with jet fuel.

I bite my tongue everytime I pass through security and try and be pleasant to poor sods who do the job because I know it's utterly pointless for pilots. It has nothing to do with being above, below or at the same level as security checks. It's simply pointless. Security needs to be done before pilots get their security pass which it sort of is. ish....

[Dave Gittins]

But surely the point is that .. yes you can commit suicide and take all your pax with you as Pilot but ..... if you are not screened, you could be carrying something through security to hand on to somebody else .. on another flight ... who is more fanatical and uncaring about his future well being.

It's to stop crew who are sympathisers ... not necessarily suicidal.

:ugh:

[Pidge]

We are screened! To get the security pass.

:ugh:

[Dave Gittins]

With respect so were a number of gentlemen who work for or used to work for the NHS who are currently in Paddington Green.

[kdowdy]

Dave Gittins got it Right,once we as pilots are exempt from security checks ,we become the loophole whereby for the right money or threat someone will carry an item to be handed over to someone on the inside.

[Pidge]

Disagree......

[ray cosmic]

Great machines exist where you place your feet one at a time on a machine which somehow scans the shoe. No need to take the shoe off anymore at some places..:ok:

[Ron & Edna Johns]

All these years on, I still cannot understand why shoes need removal for separate x-raying and your pockets don't......

[sidtheesexist]

Personally speaking, I am sick to death of being treated like a prime security risk everytime I pass through security at a UK airport. All the european airports seem to be more relaxed but the UK is a joke!! What is the point of having an airside pass if we are going to be treated like the pax!!!!! I say, good on the Aussie pilots.................Hopefully, the UK authorities that matter, will smell the coffee and start directing the effort and resources where they are really needed - i.e at PROFILING the pax. Rant over...............:ugh:

[4on4off]

Agree with the last post, not the implications of the name though.

We are allowing a security empire to mushroom out of control in the UK and USA. In the interests of political correctness, we have submitted ourselves to the most humiliating and outrageous scrutiny.

We chose to ignore the elephant in the corner which is the fact that the people who pose the threat all come from an easily identifiable ethnic background.

[Sleeve Wing]

Sshhhhh..............4on4off.
You'll have the Thought Polizei after you. Stick with elephant ! :oh:

[TopBunk]

Dave Gittins got it Right,once we as pilots are exempt from security checks ,we become the loophole whereby for the right money or threat someone will carry an item to be handed over to someone on the inside.

If you honestly think that the regime of 'security' checks at airports stops everything unwanted getting airside you are deluding yourself:ugh: - all it takes is for someone to throw something over the fence, for heaven's sake.

Do you really think that a cursory check of a vehicle will stop someone taping a gun/500ml of water:rolleyes:/an ingredient of a bomb onto a vehicle chassis etc (what about the roof - never checked AFAIK)?

It is all about a show of presence to deter potential terrorists, to encourage them to try softer targets, rather than to prevent. To absolutely prevent would bring aviation to a standstill. I liken it to having a burglar alarm - if everyone but you in your street has one, who will the burglars hit?

So pilots are screened for their airside passes, then get screened (in the US) to prove who they are (having already flown 7+ hours to get there) and not having killed anyone en-route; who is kidding who here? It is a joke, as I said before, we can down an aircraft with our bare hands, we don't need a 200ml tube of toothpaste ....

[cwatters]

Fake pilots never manage to get onto planes do they...and before anyone points out that it's very rare...perhaps terrorists don't try to get fake pilots onboard because they know they are subject to the same level of secirity as pax.

[Yossarian]

Security has lost touch with reality. I go to the bathroom for 2 mins, my ethnically suspect FO locks the bulletproof door and all we can do is hold on for the last ride. But at least my shoes are clean!

[F4F]

Yossarian you gimme the creeps... gonna stop drinking to stop havin' to use the loo to stop my F/O from stopping our/my life :cool:

live 2 fly 2 live

[Ladusvala]

If there´s no need to screen police officers and custom officials everytime they go inside the security zone then there shouldn´t be any need to screen pilots either.

or...

If pilots can bring dangerous items inside the security control if they are not screened, so can police officers and customs officials too, right?!

All you need to do is check the pilots ID and really make sure that they are who they claim to be.

[Jox]

Guys,

Lets keep this real. What do you want to do ? Refuse to go to work because we have to endure security, stupid questions, significant restrictions and we are all fed up with it.

Thanks for comming to the airport today, feel free to speak to Human Remains and collect your P45 on your way out after having surrendered your pass and thanks for working for us.

Lets not kid ourselves, there are plenty of people out there desperate to do what we do.

Do you really believe that any of us could get a job flying anywhere in the world without security or having to go through with whatever rules they want us to play to today ?

Exactly. Yes its a pain, but it is a pain for the SLF, a pain for the ramp guys, a pain for ATC, a pain for the Ops guys and guess what, its a real pain for the security guards who are as subject to it as everybody else.

I would rather they be there than not and if you really expect that you are going to get some sort of exemption just because of what we do - dream on.

Get with the programme, smile if you can and if you really do not want to, I saw an advert for bus drivers on the way home, they do not need to go through security just to get to their office, they do pretty much what we do and they earn £12.53 per hour once they get their licence.

I'm going to bed, got to be at the airport tomorrow to do what I get paid for, enjoy it, oh and go through security to get there, just as everyone expects me to.

:ok:

[bigjarv]

Who checks the security guys?!?! Is there security to check security who check security to check security who check security to check security who check security to check security who check security to check security who check security etc!!!!!!

Do security guys get paid less than pilots? If so are they not more susceptible to bribes? There are cheaper ways of getting stuff through security than using pilots I'm sure.

[Dave Gittins]

I will be astonished if Security staff and Police are not as scrupulously checked as the rest of us day on day by their colleagues.

They could be "sleepers", as the recently arrested NHS staff are now being alleged to have been - apparently recruited in Saudi yaers ago specifically to come and work in the UK NHS - or they too have wives and families who can be threatened.

Read the reports of the current trial where access to the cash stash in Kent was by kidnapping the vault manager's wife and kids.

Yes things can be thrown over the fence, but be fair, if I am SLF at T4 at boarding via a jetway at Heathrow, I can hardly nip across to the other side of 27 R coz somebody threw something over from the Bath Road. BUT I could be slipped something that came through in an unscreened/unchecked Pilot's / Policeman's / Security guard's bag or jacket pocket.

I hate the delays and the indignity and the inconvenience as much as anybody else and I've been security screened and had airside passes, but until we can be certain about everybody, everyday, they have to be checked all the time.

What does p**s me off is to hear that the latest lads who attacked London and Glasgow were another lot on databases of suspects but they were still able tro do what they ried to do. Yeah what about profiling and implementing it ???

[despegue]

Next time I'm going as SLF, I will take my old frying oils and paint with me to security.
This way, they can dispose of it instead of me having to drive to the toxic waste disposal centre.

[wobble2plank]

I think the biggest gripe here is a very simple one:
As SLF I do not in anyway have a problem with standing in the queue for a security check. The main reason being that I can endure it once or twice a year/month etc. for the sake of the safety of the aircraft.

When I check in as operating crew, through the secure company compound, day in, day out getting scanned, prodded and poked, searched, stripped and annoyed for 15-20 days a month, month in month out, thenit becomes a problem.

As has been said already, we have the controls of the aircraft, the decision on fuel loading etc. etc. etc. It doesn't matter how well security checked and scanned and screened you are there is nothing that scans inside the head which can pick up if someone is planning such things after years of 'peacefully' doing the job. All this 'rigourous' screening is producing is pi$$ed off pilots who 'potentially' can be distracted by the process from doing their jobs.

We need to split the requirements from those who have to endure it for 1/2 or say, less than 5 times a month and those who have to endure it 2/3 times a day.

:ok:

W2P

[Dave Gittins]

I can sympathise with the frustration that you have to do it far more than I do ... however, I have been in the same position, on Airport construction work where walking through security to work airside 3 - 4 times a day, with toe-tector boots, steel tapes etc. that ALWAYS set off the AMD and cause a delaying fuller inspection is very frustrating, when it is repetetive and the same security staff are involved.

However, as I said earlier, even somebody scrupulously honest but who has the opportunity to carry something through security, runs a rsk of having his arm twisted. Do you want to be in the position where that could happen to you and your families ?

[forget]

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/Untitled-3-1.jpg

[Ropey Pilot]

Jox
Do you really believe that any of us could get a job flying anywhere in the world without security or having to go through with whatever rules they want us to play to today ?


Yes - every other day when I fly INTO the UK from european airports.

At least without all the excess and unecessary security that UK PLC has managed to introduce with very little thought

Why, as a pilot, can I not take a bottle of shampoo out of the UK - but if I bought it down route I could bring it back:confused: What I can do is decant it into a generic travel container bought at boots - so I now go through security with a selection of unidentifiable brightly coloured liquids - much safer:\

I cannot take a sealed bottle of water issued by my company on the previous day-even if I was willing to taste test it as it is 500ml. I can buy duty free once airside (by the way I wouldn't since every bottle of gin has been opened and swabbed - or if it hasn't why are we deemed a bigger risk than the workers/deliveries to the airside shops:mad:)

Following the knee-jerk reaction to the liquid threat (which was all but entirely discredited as an impossible task outside a lab by bomb experts) common sense has unsurprisingly ceased to prevail - entirely because most people only have to do this a few times a year, and those who are inconvenienced most have little financial clout with respect to the BAA.

How quickly was duty free re-instated - and why is it safer any than the pilot having toothpaste?

How many body cavity searches are carried out pre-flight?

Yes - we currently have to accept it. It doesn't mean we have to like it or more importantly stop campaigning for common sense

[ehwatezedoing]

Quoting someone from Air Canada about security hassles:

Just do what I do. Carry a picture of yourself in the flight deck holding the crash axe. Really makes them feel like morons.

:}

[TINTIN25]

Yes Airport security has gone over the top. I think it is a real insult to us pilots if we need to be security checked at the airport. It is really pointless as if we wanted to do something harmfull there is nothing anyone can do to stop us!

[Gnirren]

Let's say you're a terrorist looking to cause some major havoc on a western country, like England for example. Unless you're a complete retard you'll know by now that airports are the most guarded and screened places of all the public places you might target. You'd have to ask yourself is it REALLY worth the risk Vs the reward of attempting it?

Then you think about the security onboard cruise ships and highspeed trains for example. If you wanted to kill people, really pull a terror attack off properly, how hard would it be? You derail one of those trains along the hundreds of miles of track that's unmonitored and hundreds of people would die. Why on earth would you go for an airport or an airplane when you can see from a mile away that you'll be scrutinized to pieces?

Either every single terrorist out there is a full-fledged retard, or there's an interest in keeping people scared.

Or think about this, if terrorists really wanted to mess with us, why not issue 200 bombthreats a month at major airports all over the country. It would produce absolute mayhem at the cost of a phonecall, travel would grind to a halt, businesses would be affected, people would be scared. A terrorists wet-dream right? Then there's the added benefit of the "peter and the wolf" effect. If the system over time becomes relaxed about this barrage of fake alerts then it will become easier to pull off a real attack. So why isn't this being done either?

Once again, is every single terrorist a complete idiot or could it be that this terror notion is being perpetuated by other parties with more to gain? I don't know but the whole thing reeks that's for sure.

[chrisbl]

The biggest challenge for the industry is the retention of the passengers confidence in air travel. If you lose that you lose your jobs.

Therefore having crew go through the security checks in sight of the passengers is all part of sustaining that confidence.

The effectiveness of each measure intoduced is debateable in itself but it does create and atmosphere of secruity for the many. Its like the police wandering round the airport with machine guns.

If they had to use them then its likely many passengers would be killed in the process. Having the police armed just puts another doubt in the way of an attacker.

Increasingly we are seeing the threats coming from intelligent articulate professional people, where the reaction to their arrest or conviction has been disbelief by those who know them. Why should there not be pilots who are sleepers as there were with doctors in the same position.

For people whose training requires them to maintain situational awareness and not get bogged down with the wrong issue, its really quite scary.

If you want to fly for three days in planes with no people in the back and then get sacked keep going on about how much above all this security you all are. The SLF might decide to help you out of the business.

[Smokie]

forget,

That technology has been around for a while now.
Whilst it may work in the USA, it certainly won't work here in the UK, as there are Too many money grabbin Barstewards that want there pound of flesh.
Ie, they want their cut of the pie and regardless of what "Pass" you have, all the different airports introduce their own rules over the top of what should realistically be required.

The bottom line is MONEY and they want their share of it at your/our expense.:ugh:

[Pidge]

Jox and Chrisbl. You (like too many) miss the point. We're not above security and it has nothing to do with human rights, it's just that pilots should be FUNDAMENTALLY PART OF AIRPORT SECURITY. Instead we're treated in the opposite, not allowed anything over 100ml etc and all the rest. What a missed opportunity to utilise a fairly large group of 'relatively' intelligent people to aid in security. If one or two cause trouble, so what. Life's too short...........

[ShotOne]

well said, pidge. we aren't asking for pilots to simply waltz through -although that IS what police, customs etc do, without attracting any issues from the anti-pilot commentators here.

But the idiocy in security MUST stop. we're talking about trivial items being confiscated -highlighter pens, contact lense fluid, moisturiser. Try putting up with that nonsense several times a day -especially when some of the individuals seem to have a personal issue with "jumped up" pilots (regrettably an actual quote).

The pilot is the person IN CHARGE of security of his aircraft. Lets have sensible security. Treating him as a suspect to be stripped, humiliated and jerked around harms aviation security.

[hoss72]

This thread started about taking shoes off going through security, why not buy shoes that do not trigger metal detecting arches? I have and they look no different than other shoes with metal in them. It is usually the metal strengthening plates in the sole of the shoe that triggers the arch.

[Smokie]

Exactly, WE are in charge of the security of the aircraft that we operate.
The question is: How do we get these MORONS to acknowledge this FACT and stop treating us as the criminal?

Perhaps security checks that are on a par with the Police and Customs would not go amiss to redress the balance?

[Stuck_in_an_ATR]

I am with cwatters on this. I fly shorthaul and get checked up to 4 times a day, very often hand-searched in front of my passengers. I don't like it, but at least I know that his way I won't be mugged by some terrorist, who want my uniform/pass etc. - it's just not worth it for them. In fact it's safer this way for us, pilots!


Cheers!
Stuck

P.S. Next time you get pissed by a security guy, try to imagine how humiliating it must be for him to have to touch you all over :yuk: :}

[MadamBreakneck]

Not aircrew so take with pinch of salt, but does it make it easier perhaps for the poor security people who spend their days doing this to cheesed-off businessmen for them to be able to say: "sorry sir, but even the pilots have to go through this routine - now please let me check your shoes, thanks"?

[On-MarkBob]

What has been said here has been said many times. What I would like to see is that aircrew become part of the cure and not part of the problem, if we have we ever been a problem? Ok, there have been one or two loonies, but no security in the world will stop the pilot who wishes to commit suicide, and if that were to happen it would have to be dealt with by the rest of the crew, or the air marshall if you lucky to have one. Of the 'real' workforce of pilots, I don't know of one single incident in which anyone from any airline committed a single terrorist act.

My point is; why don't we pilots go on the same course that the security people do? (it can't be much of a course, I'm sure we'll hack it) and then we can be securitry as well as pilots and thus become part of prevention instead of being seen as a threat. After all for many, many years we have been in charge of or own, aircraft and crew's security, why did that change? BALPA, of course, do nothing. In fact I'm convinced they are part of the global warming problem, judging by the amount of CO2 they produce!!

[haughtney1]

Balpa continue to ask for specific examples of when/where various abuses and or the idiotic application of security rules......they appear to want to find a way to point out the folly of these rules by using examples that show they aren't working.
Does anyone else think Balpa are looking for excuses rather than demanding a fair hearing?
I for one feel that as a body of professionals we are cowed by our inability to stand up with one unified voice and say NO MORE.
I would support enhanced screening, bio-metric information, and best of all personal profiling...all this must be better than the current one-size fits all security screening rubbish:yuk:
Come on Balpa...grow a bloody spine for once...you are SUPPOSED to represent British Pilots and our interests...and not avoid the tough confrontational issues that we now face.

[llondel]

hoss72:
This thread started about taking shoes off going through security, why not buy shoes that do not trigger metal detecting arches?

That doesn't always help - I know my shoes won't trip a metal detector but that doesn't stop some airports from insisting on screening them anyway. At Stansted they've got a shoe x-ray machine between conventional security and the departure lounge so the x-ray people don't even know whether you passed the metal detector OK or not.

[Avman]

I don't know of one single incident in which anyone from any airline committed a single terrorist act.

Yet!

If they can infiltrate hospitals as doctors, they can do the same as pilots with airlines. Note, it doesn't have to be an U.S. or U.K carrier. With several pilots working for one carrier it would be only a matter of time before two of them are rostered on the same flight. Doesn't have to be a pax flight, so forget the skymarshal (who with a locked cockpit door couldn't do anything anyway). They could even form their own ad hoc cargo airline and......Oh I could just go on for ever. There's no solution except to try and convince these terrorists that there are no virgins waiting for them.

[haughtney1]

If they can infiltrate hospitals as doctors, they can do the same as pilots with airlines.

Avman, then by your rational...it is just a matter of time until two Policemen/Airport security guards/petrol tanker drivers, are rostered together and cause chaos...either way, removing my toothpaste does nothing to reduce the risk of any of the previously named individuals doing something bad:=

[Avman]

P R E C I S E L Y ! Anything is possible and no existing "security" measures can effectively protect us from all eventualities. The best hope we can have is that the intelligence people can keep on top of the game - most of the time!

[Smokie]

Ah that magic word " Intelligence" which seems to be severely lacking in some departments!

[Mentaleena]

I liked the posting that suggested carrying your own picture with the axe in the flightdeck!!!
I'm going to take my picture today, a brilliant way to drive the point home!:D

[Dirty Mach]

you want to drive the point home? are you sure you mean that?!:eek:

[Dave Gittins]

Just musing on the question of what screening we are talking about and where it would be effective / recognised.

OK ... I pass all my details to the UK Government together with details of my airline, ATPL etc and they look at my background, Police Record, M15 / MI6 databases whatever and clear me as trusted flightcrew to have an airside pass with no restrictions and no need to pass through security with all the Pax.

Is that the way it'll work ?.... or would BAA do it for Heathrow /Gatwick Stansted / Glasgow, Manchester City Council do it for Manchester or whatever ?? Who sets the reqirements and standards .. same ones as the police or security guards yeah ?

But anyway I get cleared, is that then valid for all UK airports ? what about JFK, CDG, Frankfurt, Athens, Riyadh with recipocal rights ??

No problem, The US security checking is as rigorous as ours, if not more so, the French do a fine job, we accept anybody they ay is OK. Athens .... err didn't they have a bit of a "track record" ? Lockerbie ??? Riyadh .. oh, haven't we got some guys from Saudi who joined the NHS helping with enquiries ?

Or am I just being difficult ..... or prejudiced ???

[Dave Gittins]

The thread seems to be all about flight deck crew and no mention is made of cabin crew. The intention (maybe not intentional) is surely not to drive a wedge between one and the other ?

And if it is not, then it makes my previous post all the more pertinent.

[beamer]

Why oh why is our trade ( I hesitate to call it a profession anymore) so full of such arrogant B******ds who think they are above the law because they happen to be pilots. If a group of doctors can be utilised as sleepers for terrorist networks, are we to believe that pilots are such balanced individuals that the same cannot happen in our industry ? There are issues about consistency which perhaps need to be considered but 'I'm OK, I've got an ATPL' - I don't think so...........

[F/O Speaking]

It seems that this countries security services can`t see the woods for the trees. Whilst airport security spend their time probing pilots and taking bottles of evian off innocent passengers in the "name" of aviation security, the terrorists are at the local esso filling their jeep full of fuel to drive in to the terminal building.
What would stop them driving a fuel tanker through the security gates at Heathrow into an aircraft? I bet the security staff wouldn`t stand in front of that bu**er!!! Haven`t they seen casino royale?!?!?!
Don`t get me wrong. Security checks are essential (even for pilots) but things have gone too far! This is just the chaos that these people want to achieve.
Security is like a chain. It`s only as strong as the weakest link. Bottles of water / shampoo / pilots shoes are not the weakest link! :ugh:

[Dave Gittins]

My opinions have merely been about who has to be security searched or not.

The present terrible inconsistent mess made of executing the policy and search procedures is another matter and there is little there I can find favour with.

[Bishop of Baku]

Consider this security chasm.
On a number of occasions recently I have found myself in the flight deck with a 6ft Muslim sat behind me (who I have not met before) with his right hand next to the fire axe, who has not yet had an airside pass issued.
How can this happen?
As new cabin crew members they are encouraged to sit on the jump seat for the first few sectors. Heathrow security often takes a few weeks processing airside applications, so in the meantime they have none. After only a few short weeks training any Tom, Dick or Mohammed can be off the street and in the cockpit of an airliner. (But not my wife of course).

[ShotOne]

For what it's worth, while staff and visitors to Westminster are searched Members of Parliament are NOT. Even those who are actual former terrorists.

[SR71]

Bishop,

Good point.

I also like the crash-axe idea.

:}

I, myself, conducted a little experiment (not that I changed my behaviour in any way) when the new "anti-liquids" rule came in.

I always take a Redbull or two with me to work (I wonder why?) stashed in my flight bag.

Guess how long it was after the new rule came in before I first got stopped and asked what was in the can?

About two months.

I still take a Redbull or two with me to work as I always have done.

Every now and again I get stopped and have to drink it there and then whilst quipping,

"You know taking this off me is endangering my passengers safety because I'm often so tired at the end of a duty this is the only thing keeping me up!"

Mostly I slip through unchallenged with my dangerous liquid.

It does bring a wry smile to my face every time it happens as it does call into question the competence of those who often take a perverse sense of pleasure in contesting my professional credentials day in day out.

:}

[Dream Land]

Fake pilots never manage to get onto planes do they...and before anyone points out that it's very rare...perhaps terrorists don't try to get fake pilots onboard because they know they are subject to the same level of secirity as pax by cwatters So based on your statement, you agree with us, don't screen the pilot screen the ID. Or did you mean that since anyone can fake a pilot ID, better not take chances and check for weapons etc?

I operate out of a major US airport and do not get screened, I swipe my pass through a reader, then punch in my code, the turnstile lets me go through while security watches, after passing through, they make sure the picture on the pass is me, quick and easy.

[ithinkso]

why would i go to the trouble of fashioning a shoe size bomb to kill the lot. there are much easier ways, they are called hills. and there are plenty of them. they're also free. and they are completely legal. in fact with the exception of some pacific atolls, most countries have them.

how many buddhist suicide bombers have there been?

how many catholic suicide bombers have there been?

any hare chrishna suicide bombers?

how many muslim suicide bombers??

sure some muslims may be lovely people and the bad ones give them a bad name. but its the good ones who have to solve the muslim problem, they have to own the responsibility that their religion and no other is the religion of terror. and it is the muslims that have wrecked the wonderful industry i was in.

oh yeah, the picutre with the axe is a real bad idea, they dont like it at all. i have had security in some australian ports try to remove a set of jepps, because the metal hinges in the binder were sharp. i had to threaten to cancel the flight unless the jepps were returned. even then they were reluctant to return the company's property.

[ithinkso]

one more thing,

i regularly sit next to F/Os that have failed airline pshyc tests. in fact any company pilot can occupy jump seats.

my wife and my 7 year old cannot occupy a jump seat, neither of whom have failed a pshyc test.

does anybody else see the paradox.

[Ropey Pilot]

beamer: Why oh why is our trade ( I hesitate to call it a profession anymore) so full of such arrogant B******ds who think they are above the law because they happen to be pilots. If a group of doctors can be utilised as sleepers for terrorist networks..................... but 'I'm OK, I've got an ATPL' - I don't think so...........

It has absolutely nothing to do with your ATPL it is all to do with your airside pass. If you don't think our security screening is enough - then fine I'll happily agree to more in-depth vetting to get this; but that isn't the point. :rolleyes:

When the Capt needs to go for a 'comfort break' I am all alone in the flight deck with a reinforced door. If I wanted to kill everyone on board I could do it quite easily. I could even declare an emergency and dive towards a large city (pretending to go for the airport) and veer off at the last minute to create my own 9/11; no 150ml tube of toothpaste in sight:}

I am already trusted not to do this - therefore the CAA / UK Govt and anyone elsy you care to mention has alredy decreed me as a non-risk security wise - so why do I have to have my genitals fondled in public(usually by an ugly bloke :( )regularly at UK airports?

As has already been said - I have no probs with it when I travel as SLF -it is just starting to grate having to do it every day (well every other day- not usually a prob inbound to UK).

And as to being seen to be the same as the pax - if I were SLF I would be moreworried that the pilots were seen to be as much of a risk as they were:eek: . And also, they don't know if I have a bottle of shampoo in my luggage or not - the x-ray isn't usually publicly displayed; on several occasions ex-europe I have had a bottle of vino in my luggage and the security staff have spotted it, flagged the bag, seen me then smiled and given me my bag back. Its not that hard:rolleyes: Most people who I meet are amazed that we go through the same screening as the pax - but maybe I mix with educated people:}

[soffici]

Come on, guys!
why would anyone of us ever bring anything "dangerous" in the cockpit to be handed over to some other maniac on our very own aeroplane to kill ourselves when the only thing we have to do to kill everybody onboard (and several other thousands, depending on where we crash) is just to disengage autopilot and trim it nose down a bit?:eek:
Come on! Be serious!
Passenger confidence in air travel? How would anyone ever sensibly think getting on an unchecked train is safer than stepping on an aeroplane where the only non-screened people onboard are the drivers?:oh:
This idiocy has gone too far.:mad:
As a military C-130 pilot I must carry weapons in the cockpit when I fly to Afghanistan...:E
Will anyone ever come to me and tell me I'm a danger to flight safety?:=
Come on!

Next time someone tries to stick anything up our a...s, to check if we have a bottle of anything stuck up there, we should just smile and ask to do them the same...before they do it to us!

[soffici]

"I am already trusted not to do this - therefore the CAA / UK Govt and anyone elsy you care to mention has alredy decreed me as a non-risk security wise - so why do I have to have my genitals fondled in public(usually by an ugly bloke :( )regularly at UK airports?"

On a more light note, why don't they have supermodels to fondle with our genitals? I think nobody would ever object;)

Sorry ladies, I just couldn't keep it inside me...

[soffici]

Avman said:
"Yet!

If they can infiltrate hospitals as doctors, they can do the same as pilots with airlines. Note, it doesn't have to be an U.S. or U.K carrier. With several pilots working for one carrier it would be only a matter of time before two of them are rostered on the same flight. Doesn't have to be a pax flight, so forget the skymarshal (who with a locked cockpit door couldn't do anything anyway). They could even form their own ad hoc cargo airline and......Oh I could just go on for ever. There's no solution except to try and convince these terrorists that there are no virgins waiting for them."

Avman, please!
Don't you see the nonsense you're saying? These doctors weren't infiltrated in hospitals to kill themselves with the lot!
For Heaven's sake! If a (real) pilot wants to kill everybody on his/her own aeroplane, do you really think he/she would need anything? Do you seriously think removing toothpaste or water from my luggage will stop me the time I want to crash over some large city?
Please, get a grip!
Better, as someone else suggested, do some profiling and personal life screening, rather than searching genitals, shoes and everything else...

[Avman]

soffici, despite your wish to treat me as some sort of retard, I think we're getting our wires crossed here somewhere. My post was directly in answer to the statement quoted above my post. It did not in any way relate to the issue of what pilots may or may not carry with them through security.

You say: If a (real) pilot wants to kill everybody on his/her own aeroplane, do you really think he/she would need anything?

Now, re-read what I said. Are we not saying the same thing? If that doesn't convince you then ,even more pertinently, you also say: Better, as someone else suggested, do some profiling and personal life screening, rather than searching genitals, shoes and everything else

In an earlier post (which I guess you didn't bother to read) I said: Anything is possible and no existing "security" measures can effectively protect us from all eventualities. The best hope we can have is that the intelligence people can keep on top of the game - most of the time!

In conclusion soffici, I believe I'm actually on your side - and I've just been hit by friendly fire :).

[cwatters]

News Flash....Pilot forced to take package through security after children kidnapped.... six people arrested airside had tickets on different flights......pictures at ten...

[RVR600]

Surely taking your shoes off can not be that difficult, can it?

If I am reading this thread correctly, there are some who believe that by virtue of the fact that they are pilots, they should be treated differently from other airport workers.

The thrust of the argument appears to be, if I wanted to do some real damage all I need to do is push the stick forward, therefore I should be exempt from the same level of inconvenience as others.

I can think of numerous airside workers who could inflict just as much damage as a pilot, so should they be exempt as well? Where should we draw the line?

You start encouraging a downgrading in security for certain individuals, then sooner or later trouble will come knocking at your door and you better hope it is not the cockpit one!!

[Ropey Pilot]

I can think of numerous airside workers who could inflict just as much damage as a pilot, so should they be exempt as well? Where should we draw the line?


At the point of vetting - not the point of entry.

Engineers can do untold damage to an aircraft - the difference between them and pilots is that they are allowed the tools to do it! We just have to trust that they won't.

Pilots don't think they are special - they just have special circumstances. Do you suffer from dandruff that only a certain shampoo will hold at bay? If you are a pax you can put it in your hold luggage - no problem. If you work on the ground it will be sat in your shower at home - no problem. If you are a pilot of a 5 day trip hopping round europe you have to decant as much as you can within limits. Like to use a certain sensitive skin shave foam - sorry it only comes in 250ml containers - guess you'll just have to get used to that rash! On a diet / don't want to eat airline food for 20 days of every month - unlucky, that sarnie has mayo on it (I have seen bananas removed from crew) - get used to that high blood pressure due to that whopping salt intake.

The main thrust of the disgruntlement comes from the fact that this inconvenience is entirely uneccessary and without much thought - it is just the remenants of a poorly thought out knee-jerk reaction to a security threat of some months ago. The fact that aircrew are the only people who are actually left with any real inconvenience (the pax only have to go without their face cream for 2 hours - not 5 days) is what gets our goat.

The stuff on sale in duty free would be worthy of as much (if not more) scrutiny (I have had empty gym drinking bottles removed because I could 'fill them up when I was airside'. At this time I could buy as much dity free as I wanted). But guess what - that hit the BAA pretty heavily financially, so that got lifted sharpish. And I bet sales of drinks/overpriced water have incresed airside too!:suspect:

[Bally Heck]

If pilots must be searched, wouldn't it be a good idea to search some of the people who are currently exempt from being searched? I refer to customs, immigration service and police. They are all capable of being involved in the kidnapped family scenario.

[llondel]

The stuff on sale in duty free would be worthy of as much (if not more) scrutiny

Which is more dangerous: a pair of nail clippers or a glass bottle of something bought in duty-free? I know which I'd rather face, but:


But guess what - that hit the BAA pretty heavily financially, so that got lifted sharpish

Ban all glass bottles for sale in duty-free for security reasons and listen to the squealing.

[RVR600]

Pilots don't think they are special - they just have special circumstances.
Do you suffer from dandruff that only a certain shampoo will hold at bay? Like to use a certain sensitive skin shave foam

special circumstances? Maybe so.
Special Needs, more likely!! ;)

[winglit]

Whilst preparing the tech log for a departure, the capt asked me if he could borrow a screwdriver to tighten up his armrest that had become loose. I gave him my leatherman which I keep on my belt. He looked at me with absolute horror when I opened out the screwdriver blade and said, "My god, that's a lethal weapon!"
Whilst tightening up his armrest, he then went on to say, " So if I was a terrorist and I wanted to bring a lethal weapon on board an aeroplane, all I would have to do is become an engineer?"
To which I replied,"Yes, but that's why the terrorist decided to become a pilot, because it was easier!"
He was an ex-navy fast jet jock, who then lost his sense of humour!
But to add another point to the whinging pilots, do you think that I enjoy being treated as a criminal every time I go to work? I certainly don't enjoy taking my shoes off (even though they have kevlar toecaps and dont go beep), then being touched up by an ugly bloke. I then get back into my van, which has had a cursory check, then drive onto the ramp.
I think that this security issue is completely out of hand where it is controlled by a bunch of people with limited intelligence, but an awful lot of power. A scarey situation if you ask me.
Here's another trick you can play. We have now started getting our sandwiches confiscated. So why not make some really tasty banana and Ex-lax sandwiches! Bon appitit Mr Touchy-Feely security man with an earing, tatoos and bad breath!

[Ron & Edna Johns]

How are professional pilots going to deal with this madness when.... people*..... like barberpol sign up and make their first post asserting things like:

The 911 hijackers were associated with Saudi Airlines...
Rubbish. Saudi Arabian Airlines have only been implicated in the wild conspiracy theories circulating amongst the nutters of the net. The facts are completely different. Your allegation is untrue and potentially libelous. If you'd care to read the 9/11 Commission Report here (http://www.9-11commission.gov/) you'd discover that "Saudi Airlines", or Saudi Arabian Airlines, doesn't get a single mention anywhere.

Why do we have to tolerate people* like you around here? :ugh:

* I was going to use a few other nouns and adjectives here, but that'd probably see me banned....

[lotman1000]

I wouldn't worry too much, R&EJ.

Something tells me that Barberpol is a dumbass redneck who couldn't find his or her own rear entrance with both hands, let alone find Saudi Arabia on a globe.

At least that what his or her posts would indicate.

Probably quite similar in beliefs, intelligence and motivation to the Oklahoma City bomber.

[Lord Lucan]

Barberpole

If you care to check you will find that no evidence that would stand in court has ever been presented as to the responsibility for the 911 hijackings. And it is apparent to many that the official conspiracy theory is totally unbelievable.

[ShyTorque]

Airside Passes?
Some anomalies exist. Not all pilots have an airside pass, nor are they required to hold one. Some work from small airfields where no system for issue or checking them exists.

I last time I travelled to the USA the immigration officer ("We are the face of America" - oh dear, not a good start...) became very suspicious of me. I hold a USA business visa and have entered the country many times before, all stamped up and legal.

Having asked me what I did and why I was in the USA (annual helicopter simulator training), he said he wanted to see my airside pass. I told him I didn't have it with me as I was travelling only as a passenger and wasn't going airside during my visit. He said if I was a pilot I would have an airside pass. I told him in UK it wasn't mandatory to hold one and that I did have one but hadn't brought it along because a) I didn't think I would be expected to produce it and b) If I had brought it along I could be accused of attempting to gain airside entry when not entitled because I was not actually working as crew.

His body language told me he didn't like my answers at all! All sorts of other questions were asked; eventually he called a supervisor who thankfully sorted it out after about twenty minutes of me feeling like a criminal and holding up the queue.

The other anomaly is that it is perfectly possible to gain access to airfields where passes are mandatory without being required to show a pass.

[roll_over]

I at least think it sets a good example. Pilots are respected and when the pax see them going through the same security checks I think it's more likely that they will respect the checks.

[Avman]

Whilst there might be some merit to what you say roll_over, I am more trustful of the pilots sitting on the FD of my aircraft than I am of all the airside ground personnel who haven't visibly been "checked" in my presence. Furthermore, there is no airport security measure that can prevent a fully qualified pilot (with genuine licence and airport pass etc.) from taking his aircraft on a suicide mission.

[doubtfire]

It does my head in!!!!

[Ladusvala]

Some say that if a doctor can be a "sleeper" then so can a pilot too. The important difference is that such a terrorist pilot will not be detected by security. The reason is obvious, he doesn´t need to bring any dangerous stuff with him in order to do harm because he will use the airplane for that.

Stop this nonsense and start screening pilots the same way that police are screened.

[Ladusvala]

Cwatters...
So how come police and customs officials are not screened?

Your post could also read:

News Flash....Police officer forced to take package through security after children kidnapped.... six people arrested airside had tickets on different flights......pictures at ten...

If Police officers etc for some reason don´t have to be screened then pilots shouldn´t have to be either.
After all, police officers need to bring some dangerous item inside the airport to do harm whereas pilots don´t.

[Ladusvala]

Barberpol, you say:

"But Would you say the same of pilots bringing something thru security intended to attack another flight?"

So how can police officers, imigration and customs officials be considered safe without screening?

[toothpic]

Police, safe!
you are having a laugh!!!!!!!

www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=466832&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

[Bad Robot]

Nuff said really!


BR.

[J.O.]

On a more positive security note ... :} (apologies if this has already been posted)

Metallica Frontman Detained By Security Due To 'Taleban-Like' Beard

There's A Song In Here Somewhere...

Tales of overreaching airport security efforts continue to serve up a treasure trove of silly stories, that are more entertaining than anything we could make up. And here's another one.

All did not go smoothly leading up to the performance of heavy-metal pioneers Metallica during last weekend's Live Earth concert. According to a report in The Times, the band's lead vocalist and rhythm guitarist, James Hetfield, was detained and questioned by officials at Luton Airport when he arrived for the Saturday gig at Wembley Stadium.

Eventually, when red-faced officials realized they were detaining a guy who's sold 90-million albums, Hetfield was released, and the performance went off on time.

Hetfield's friends say it was his "Taleban-like beard" that got him pulled out of the line.

We're unable to confirm that any other middle-aged, biker-looking white guys with tattoos have actually joined the Taleban, but we have uncovered a rumour that ZZ Top has decided to travel only in old V8 Fords from now on...

FMI: www.metallica.com (http://www.metallica.com)
aero-news.net

I feel so much safer!

[Down Three Greens]

http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/letters/display.var.1414984.0.its_time_for_airport_security_to_ketch up_with_reality.php

Brilliant!!

[mikeyuk]

Customs personnel are NOT exempt from security searches, unless the exempt themselves because they are on a "shout" then there details should be logged and then the incident followed up by Security management.
The only people who are exempt are the Police and SB

[anoxic]

The only people who are exempt are the Police and SB

And I still can't see why unless....

they are on a "shout"

[Scorpion1080]

Wait a minute, let me get this right.

You are all moaning and complaining about doing something... for which you are getting paid for?

Or do you work at an airline where your working shift starts as soon as you get in the cockpit?

I am happy to go through security checks all day long if I am getting paid for it. Thats just me though.

[J.O.]

Scorpion1080:

May I ask what line of work you are in?

[Seabiscuit]

Hey everybody,
just a quick question.
I fly a 777 all over, however, when ever I go home to n.ireland I find aldergrove security completely unique.
One "officer" freely admitted today that Belfast make up their own rules. I thought everyone had to follow the DofT rules ver batem, or can they indeed implement changes as long as thier new rules are more restrictive?
Heres a few of my experiences.
Being made to take off my shoe's (no problem their) but then being made to show them the bare soles of my feet.
Being made to take mobile phones out of your bags (the rules is for computers not mobile phones.)
Having deodorant confiscated today.
I dont mind following the rules but how can you if one airport keep changing the goal posts.
Comments Appreciated....
SeaBiscuit

[Jox]

Okay people, once more into the firing line !

Having seen the comments after my last post on this subject and no, I have not changed my point of view, I saw two police officers in the coffee shop in the Queens Building at LHR assisting someone and decided that rather than pass comment such as " anoxic " I would do the decent thing and actually ask them when they were free if they are exempt from search when moving from landside to airside.

Bearing in mind that they had firearms with them, they told me that due to the "equipment " that they carry a search would be inappropriate but that statute law " apparently this is what the government pass " and specifically the aviation security act exempts officers from the police stations at airports from being required to be searched due to the execution of their duty.

Therefore boys and girls, this has nothing to do with the police, the government has said that they do not need to be searched and have made it law.

I moan about it, we all do, but let us all accept that we are all at risk and that any measure regardless of who it bothers the most is there for the benefit of aviation in general and therefore may provide some deterrent to those who are happy to harm it.

Toothpic, carry on reading the Daily Mail, guess you believe all you read, usual supposition and innuendo, hardly balanced but sufficient for you to be influenced. Try the torygraph, it has big pages and is clearly influenced by the conservatives but is at least a reputable broadsheet with a reasonable degree of balanced news and commentary.

Scorpion1080, I am right with you buddy, the minute we believe we should be able to stroll through with the " we fly the things and pose no security risk " when even the staff who search us have to be searched shows just how high some of our colleagues feel that they are in the pecking order. Rather glad that I and others believe that the system may not be perfect, possibly could be improved, but it’s what we have to work with and in the current climate I am sure it’s better than nothing.

Moaners, try concentrating on something else and lets move on........ :*

[DooblerChina]

Seabiscuit,

You are indeed correct, the DofT do set the rules, or rather guidelines, which the airports are free to interpret how ever they choose, as long as the minimum is adhered to.

For example, they ask that a percentage of shoes be removed, however Gatwick has now decided that all shoes should be x-rayed. In fact the BA terminal (N or S I forget) has a completely seperate x-ray machine solely for this purpose!!

If airports are free to interpret the rules as they see fit then I suspect that this debate shall rumble on and on and on........:ugh:

[winkle]

If you dont like it either stand your ground or leave.
I dont like it, am not gonna waste my time standing my ground against a totally riduclous system so will leave soon - just a few more months - if you got the brains to fly an airliner then you got the brains to do something fun and interesting so go do something else there are lots of fun jobs out in the big wide world if you care to look.
IMHO being an airline pilot was cool 10 -15 years ago now it sucks! take a real good look at yourselves brothers ( & sisters) and make the right decision before you whinge yourself into an early grave.
jet noise the sound of freedom- yeh right - locked in a 2 man cell having just been strip searched on your way in! give me a break.
who is protecting who from who that is all i ask of the security services.
ex mil fj m/e civ capt etc counting the days and am only in my 40s ttfn.

[Bad Robot]

Or go fly in a country where the Security issue is taken seriouly enough but not P1ssing off the guys & girls it is also there to protect.

Like I have done just recently, as I certainly got really fed up with all the BS, UK plc has taken upon themselves to inflict on the Crews in ole Blighty.

It is actually a welcome breath of fresh air.:ok:

BR.

[MaxAOB]

The system has lost the plot with security over the last few years. Nobody minds sensible security but i can't take a water bottle on to my aeroplane but some taliban sympathysing geezer in skychef can take a truckload through and then give it to me. I cant take my leatherman through but i can have the axe on the flight deck. I can be humiliated at the screening point but as soon as i am on my aeroplane the responsibility lies with me for security. Some of my colleagues fly military jets in support of the UK as reservists, as soon as they return they are looked upon as scumbags. I cant take my wife of 30 years on the jumpseat but somebody i have never seen or heard of can as long as they have company ID. The lunatics are running the asylum.

It does make me wonder why i am bothering and yes i am considering leaving the business. Fortunately i have retired once but am still well under 65, the tea shop in dorset is looking better every day. Good luck to those of you that are left.

[Piltdown Man]

Don't forget chaps, when our comrades in security pat you down (or touch you up) remember to tell them that you are Gay. Then, when they on start grappling with the family jewels, remember to smile. They'll often jump away if you try to touch them as well. It doesn't change the price of bacon, but it's good fun.

PM

[ChristiaanJ]

Ever seen the mess a box of exploding firecrackers (fireworks variety, I'm not talking thunderflashes) can make in an enclosed space?

Do those remind you of something (think fuse)?

Are female flight crew and F/As already being forced to discard their Tampax at security, or do we have to wait for the first "tampon bomb" attempt?

[Mac the Knife]

Here a lovely one...

http://www.natch.net/stuff/TSA/

This is getting surreal.

:D

[llondel]

Mac,

Next time skip the D cells and just buy them once in the departure area, having allowed an extra five minutes.

(or wasn't it you, given your location information?)

[wisepepper]

I carry a crew badge, which means that I am deemed safe enough to be allowed to enter the most secure area of an airliner, whether I wear a uniform or not. At that point, as someone pointed out, all I would need to do real damage are my bare hands.
Having removed my dangerous water, or my suspicious toothpaste or my menacing shaving foam because I am not in uniform does not add one f:mad:g thing to the security of that flight!!! Not to mention the dreaded look of death that our trusty min-wage TSA people shoot at you if you dare not carry items in a transparent, quart size, ziplock bag... :rolleyes: what a joke! What does it have to do with safety on board. And can someone please explain me why, why, why the laptop needs to go in separately from the bag?
I can feel it coming, one of these days I will think out loud and I'll get myself in trouble.
What should happen is the following: if you carry a crew badge you walk through a dedicated crew access entrance, under supervision of the TSA/law enforcement. You normally don't get stopped, and you are not allowed to bring dangerous items on board, and the TSA can and will spot check crewmembers to ensure directives are followed.
Oh and one more thing...let's not forget that 95% of all cargo loaded downstairs on heavy iron birds (the ones more likely to appeal to the average bad guy) goes on board UNCHECKED!!! My toothpaste dangerous??? What a joke! :ugh:

[FerrypilotDK]

Some interesting facts. At the Luxembourg airport, they had a new orifice created after a poor rating from the TSA fascists. So the result? They now take 6 months to issue a pass!!!! The security people are still waiting for a pass, some of them!!!! So they check the passes and man the gate, but CANNOT themselves go through the gate, as their pass hasn´t arrived!!!!!

The mechanics that haven´t received their permanent passes yet, are issued a day pass. However, those on the night shift, must go to the maingate 10 minutes before midnight and get a new pass...... Couldn´t they be issued a "shift" pass or a 24 hour pass? Of course, but that is not in the book, so there you are. So it is NOT just the UK........ there are security crazies everywhere!

I was driven directly through the gate at LHR to my plane last time.....0 security at all....right from the hotel. Go figure! At Stavanger, after arrival and being driven to the terminal by the fireman in the handling vehicle airside, is stopped en route and checked! I asked if the firemen would be checked if they were on the way to a fire at the terminal. Security got a worried look........

...probably being discussed on a higher level as we speak!

See the movie V........

ciao!

[dash6]

Out of base pilots at a UK Airport (Can't tell you where;Security) Anyway,at "Beckam International" You can't follow the passenger route,but must go thro' the crew channel. You then must be escorted (By security) By secure routings,until you arrive at the passenger route.At this point you are considered secure enough to apply to security to allow you on to the ramp.A secure person,will then be called to let you access your airplane.Be warned;should you wish to inspect your aircraft before departure (For security reasons?) You will discover that the security staff cannot escort you while you carry out your walk round,as they are not allowed on the ramp.(For security reasons.) Have a nice day. It's hugely entertaining;the customer pays,and I wasn't doing any thing else that day. God bless Aviation. R.I.P

[CFD]

I was in the crew channel at a uk airport last week and security stopped a pass holder and refused to let them take their small container through because their porridge was too runny!

[bnt]

I hope this is the right forum, and it's not old news: I've found an interesting article with some comments, by a pilot, on airline and airport security. It talks about the TSA in the USA, but I don't that how the UK would be much different these days.

It's about how the crew and passengers getting on a plane are the focus of most security these days, but that focus may be a little misplaced... link (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/07/16/a-pilot-on-airline-security/).

[Panman]

It dawned upon me that .................
[SNIP]
.....................Passengers are not screened before they go into the terminal and can take anything they want into such congested areas.

Loose lips sink ships L.O.A.J No need to give them ideas.

Panman

[ChristiaanJ]

L O A and Panman,
All everybody can hope for, that they've never heard of PPRuNe, and that they've never thought of the half-dozen scenarios we can all think of without even really trying.

[Awakevortice]

Had my mozzie spray confiscated at LHR while attempting to reach the A/C to operate a Lagos trip recently. I explained that this medication was required for me to "Do my job effectively as crew" as instructed by BALPA in their sensible security campaign. The retarded response was what I have come to expect in this deeply sick country. I meekly submitted and faced the LOS mozzies at dawn, unarmed. ...And finally... just through the screening at a BAA airport last week, in a shoeless semi naked condition, I was compelled to expose the soles of my feet to the security personnel. Have we achieved a new level, or was that an "Above and Beyond" level of stupidity?

[md80classic]

Of course the raw screening is not perfect and we don´t need our toothpaste to turn our office into a mass destruction weapon. But if we´re exempted of screening the chain is weakened. Eg: the terrorists burst in your home and put a gun in your wife and son´s head and give you something you have to pass to somebody after the security. Just an scenario

[Mick Stability]

If they do that they're dead anyway, and I would assume that before allowing the terrorists to change my mind about my responsibilities as commander.

The way out is simple. Stop persecuting everyone. Turn the full force of state security on the enemy by the use of profiling and invasive intelligence of targets.

They are at war with us,we should treat them as such and stop this ridiculous farce which is for PR purposes only.

[MaxReheat]

Oh pleeeeze, MD80 - that's the oldest and most jaundiced excuse for the current charade going. Do come up wirh something a little more imaginative.:=

[Metro man]

I don't mind having my identity checked, not hard to impersonate a pilot is it ?

I don't mind my bag being x-rayed, remember the attempt to blow up an EL-AL flight by planting a bomb on a pregnant woman ? BTW Anyone been given luggage as a present ?

I don't mind the metal detector for the obvious stuff.

I do object to the petty restrictions such as tweezers and nail files. If I've passed the other tests what am I going to do with a small pair of round tipped scissors. I've got a crash axe behind me and the controls in my hands.

Also the manners of some of these security people leaves a lot to be desired. As well as regular checks on what can get through, the odd "mystery shopper" checking on how they deal with the public could improve their attitude no end. Some of them are very rude and ignorant.

[flyer4life]

MD80, so why doesn't your argument apply to armed police who can stroll through security holding firearms which could be passed onto someone undesirable...
... or is being an unmarried orphan with no children part of their job criteria?

[paulo]

This topic has come up so many times.

If the screener knows you personally as a pilot, then sure, no need for any checks.

Otherwise you are someone in fancy dress with some apparent ID. Neither are too hard to fake. Airline ID isn't exactly banknote quality, (there's stuff loads of dodgy twenties still going round - hence the design change).

So then, the question of the Police. My guess here is that faking being airport Police (by dint of appearance) is VERY much harder. Any "colleague" is likely to clock it, and any screener used to dealing with the same team, in exactly the same uniform, day in day out, will pick up on something wrong.

For people who appear to be aircrew, there's no such consistency. Neither in terms of the faces in and out of a busy airport, their uniforms, anything.

Theoretically you could team up with a mate, get some MP5s, get the police uniform "just so", and hope you'll breeze it, but realistically it's sooo far off the scale. I'd guess you'd be had on CCTV in no time.

There's just no comparison, fake aircrew vs fake police, as a point of vulnerability - as I see it.

When I last posted on this subject, some years ago, I suggested a pass system that was tightly linked to the holder (i.e. biometric, and real time database linked). If I'm reading one of the posts above rightly, then this is now being discussed.

That's what's needed, and needs lobbying for.

[flyer4life]

That's a reasonable point, but I wasn't talking about impersonating anyone. md80classic wrote about the possibility of a pilot having his family at gunpoint and being forced to carry something dangerous through security.
I'm saying the same could be said of armed police but still they aren't subject to same degrading searches we are.

[Bad Robot]

In bygone days of my ex military service, "recognition" of ones colleagues indeed seemed to carry more weight than it does now. Anyone who was not recognised was given the appropriate consideration until the full ID had been established, then entry was allowed/denied as the case determined.


BR.

[paulo]

"md80classic wrote about the possibility of a pilot having his family at gunpoint and being forced to carry something dangerous through security.
I'm saying the same could be said of armed police but still they aren't subject to same degrading searches we are."

flyer4life... Point noted.

One could indeed threaten anyone with airside access on this basis. I'd still say it has parallels with my previous point, i.e. the vulnerability - I think - is much lower, aircrew vs. police.

What I sense though (and here I talk generally, not about you specifically flyer4), is arguments for *less* security, in relation to aircrew, on the basis of flaws elsewhere in the system.

If there are these flaws, shouldn't the argument be for *more* security?

Ostensibly one could say that there are posts here proposing that very idea, but the overall sentiment is... "It's not fair. I'm a pilot."

That's not a way to form a security policy. It's as it reads - a sentiment. Heartfelt, but not necessarily thought through.

[Life's a Beech]

Anyone been on the East Apron at Norwich? I had to go through security to get ground side the other day :confused: *

For logic that beats Newquay, where I wasn't allowed coffee for myself, but was allowed to take it on when the handler (who had made it) said it was for my pax :ugh:

Why try to take away my knife, when I'm the only one on the plane? Why refuse to allow sealed cans through, which I could not have tampered with and were anyway simply going to be passed through checked luggage by my handling agent and to me - I stow all luggage anyway, and have full access to it until I depart, so it seems pointless banning me from carrying things that are allowed in luggage.

This is what those who think pilots should be screened like pax seem to be missing, the complete lack of logic and consistency, and more important the lack of relevance to security.

It is also fighting against a threat that is no longer real. How many passengers would allow their aircraft to be taken since September 2001? How could terrorists use liquids to make a bomb, when scientists asked to try it showed that it would need a lot of time and a small laboratory, and even with that the process would be likely to kill or incapacitate the terrorist before any viable explosives are made unless they were skilled and experienced chemists.

This adds up to an illusion of security, that actually is detremental to security because people are looking the wrong way.

*For those unacquainted with Norwich, the East Apron is not within the secure area, for some unexplained reason. For my handling agent to take me to the terminal to go to my hotel, the easiest way was to drive me to the crew airside entrance.

[paulo]

I can't give an opinion on that airport, and indeed it sounds warped, but there is one phrase that stands out:

"This is what those who think pilots should be screened..."

There are a good few people here who remember a certain fake pilot. That was probably one of the most shocking things I've ever seen. It developed over a period of time, here on pprune, and finally the guy was put away for a long long time thanks to the dilligence of those here. It took years though.

It's not the same circumstances that are being discussed here, but suffice to say that there are people who will use the identity as cover.

The more "untouchable" the role, the more it acts as an incentive to those who want to slip through.

[Ladusvala]

Issue all pilots with a secure id-card which includes scanning of the eye.
Establish dedicated crew channels where you randomly scan a small percentage of the crew.

If your wife and children are at gun point back home you punch in your normal pin code but add one (ex. 1112 instead of 1111) and the security personnel will pick you for the random screening and discover the things that you are pressured to bring inside.
The terrorists will not know if you got picked at random or not.

It all comes down to a secure id.

[Smokie]

This is EXACTLY the sort of security that is needed, it has been around for a while now but will UK PLC use it?
Definitely not, as it encroaches into their profit margins. If you introduce a sensible security system like this then ALL the UK airports are cut out of the "Air side Pass " racket which they charge up to £250 or more per crew member. This Should be valid at any European Airport but each Airport wants their share of the Pie and you have to have a Local Pass as well! Its all about making a profit from security I'm afraid and not contributing towards it.:ugh:

[Dream Land]

A system similar to this was used where I was based in the states, first of all we traveled through a door where we approached a turn-style device (floor to ceiling), we swiped our card and entered our PIN number, this then allowed us to push ourselves through, along with bags to the other side where TSA would then verify that our ID pass picture was actually us, no search, no x-ray, no passengers, worked great.

[el #]

Issue all pilots with a secure id-card which includes scanning of the eye.
Establish dedicated crew channels where you randomly scan a small percentage of the crew.

If your wife and children are at gun point back home you punch in your normal pin code but add one (ex. 1112 instead of 1111) and the security personnel will pick you for the random screening and discover the things that you are pressured to bring inside.
The terrorists will not know if you got picked at random or not.

It all comes down to a secure id

Excuse me, but you fail to understand the scenario that develops if such an horrible and vile proposition is put in practice. The victim may _not_ want to be screened on the other does not need any secrecy if he/she decides to alarm about the situation as the terrorist are not there to judge.

Then of course, either if the victim for whatever reason doesn't accomplish the criminal requests (no matter the reason why) or even if it does, nothing guarantees that the the kidnapped ones will make alive and well.

It is a deadend scenario that may have deterrents, but no safe harbor.

[Groundcrew Gal]

Has anyone heard whats been goin on up in SYY?

[Shack37]

No, what's the rumour?

[Groundcrew Gal]

Not sure been hearing on the grapevine something about a breach at SYY. Just wondering what it was?

[cwatters]

Wern't strikes by fire fighters planned for tomorrow?

[brain fade]

Hardly likely to be high up on AQ's 'to do' list, is it?;)

[Groundcrew Gal]

Don't know to be honest I only heard a whisper that something had happened lately up there in bleaksville!

[TDK mk2]

Maybe a passenger accidentally left a coloured plastic see through water pistol (less than 100ml of course!) that was small enough to fit inside a christmas cracker in their hand luggage. This really happened and I had Heather or Sheena, one or other one of the security supervisors at Stornoway present it to me (as operating crew) as I went through staff search. When I politely suggested that I take it and return it to the passenger at the end of the flight she recoiled and proclamed that "this gun will not go onboard that aircraft". You get the picture and there's plenty of other similar tales of their own special brand of security. Word has it they were bullied at school...

[llondel]

It could have been a packet of gunpowder green tea - that's not allowed on board either.

[Wiley]

I was speaking to an American pilot who was authorised to carry a gun on board. (I can't cecall what the title for such people are - Armed Aircrew Officers or some such?)

Apparently, when we, the disarmed, go through the take-your-shoes-hat-coat-belt-and-coins-off farce, these approved armed flight crew officers go through a separate check, where they show their approval to be carrying a gun and are allowed to proceed airside.

Said armed flight crew officer let it be seen that he had a very small pen knife as well as his gun - and (you all know what's coming next, don't you?) - of course, the TSA security guard, sticking to the letter of the law, insisted he wasn't allowed to carry the knife aboard the aircraft.

When he gently remonstrated with the security people that he was authorised and trusted to carry a gun on the aircraft, so he might also be trusted to carry a 2cm pen knife as well, they called the police, announcing loudly to the advancing policemen: "He has a gun!", which got the reaction expected from US cops, who came at him with weapons out and aimed.

I know we all have to play the game, but I still feel like a bloody goose every time I have to walk though the machines in my socks and then re-dress, including getting down to put my shoes back on, in front of a couple of hundred people.

[SIC]

Reminds me of the time a captain was told that he might not carry and item judged dangerous on board - however they would bag it in a security bag and hand it to the flight crew for safekeeping untill destination. So the item was promptly bagged/sealed and handed back to him......:uhoh:

[TangoUniform]

Program is called FFDO (Federal Flight Deck Officer). For many of us, we can't keep up with our mobile phones, how the heck are we going to keep up with a weapon.:cool:

[Beausoleil]

It seems reasonable to me that the number of weapons taken through security should be monitored. People are licensed to take a gun through, and a check can be made that said gun is still in their possession when they leave the secure area.

If someone comes along with an extra weapon and are let through, what procedure monitors that they still had it when they left the secure area?

Allowing someone through security with a specified weapon is quite different from allowing them through with as many weapons as they like.

If Al Qaeda are the masterful covert operatives we are told they are when the state needs to justify removing our civil liberties, we should certainly fear that they can bribe a policeman or armed pilot to carry a weapon through security for them.

If they are the bumbling oafs who get occasionally get lucky when we take our eye off the ball, this isn't the most intrusive unnecessary measure that is currently deployed.

[discountinvestigator]

I was stopped from taking my lifejacket through security as it had a pressurised gas cannister in it. Now given that I was already wearing a goon suit for a low level mission over the North Sea, it might have been reasonable to allow a lifejacket to be taken on-board.

Next they stopped me from taking my survival equipment with me, because there was a small knife in there.

Single pilot operation, no passengers, no other crew :ugh:

[Say again s l o w l y]

It doesn't get any better does it..... I still laugh at the time when the airport I was based at at the time changed their security passes (Not notified by the way) and even though my "old" one was in date they got huffy and insisted I be escorted out to the a/c by one of the security apes.

I dragged him into the cockpit and and pulled down the panel covering the fire axe and casually asked if this was allowed.

He started blustering and told me in no uncertain terms that there was no way he was going to allow the a/c to go with that on board. At this point I laughed and told him that therefore the a/c was grounded as it didn't have a full safety kit.

He then said. "maybe these rules are a bit daft..." I hope it made a difference, but I doubt it.

[The Family Ness]

Unsure if this is the rumoured ‘major breach’ but understand this incident happened in SYY very recently.

Passenger arrived at the security checkpoint with a bottle of Jack Daniels. Security told passenger the liquid could not be taken on board unless they returned to the check-in desk and it was put in the hold. Passenger duly went back to check-in desk and left the bottle with the passenger service agent. Passenger proceeded through security. Security staff later saw the passenger service agent within the airport’s restricted zone passing the bottle back to the passenger. := Passenger service agent was reported by security for breaching security regulations. :ouch: It does beg the question how the agent managed to ‘smuggle’ the bottle past security and into the restricted zone. :confused: Poor procedures or staff not vigilant?? Dont know if any action resulted from this ‘incident’.

SYY is getting a lot of bad publicity. Staff shortages in all areas of the airport are biting, the staff left are getting grief and customers are suffering. :(

[Bokkenrijder]

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/07/30/heathrow/index.html

:ugh:

[llondel]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6922992.stm


Seems that IATA thinks that UK airport screening only benefits the airport operators and doesn't improve security.

I guess this probably needs to end up tacked on a previous security thread, but for a few hours it's news of a sort.


"A particular focus will be the UK, where unique screening policies inconvenience passengers with no improvement in security.
"The only beneficiary is the airport operator BAA that continues to deliver embarrassingly low service levels by failing to invest in appropriate equipment and staff to meet demand. This must stop."

[discountinvestigator]

I always wondered why my suit carrier suddenly seemed to be highly explosive having been through LGW or LHR for several years.

I always wondered why five years of not taking my laptop out of my hand baggage at LGW and LHR suddenly became a risk to other passengers.

Perhaps they will allow me to carry the DFDR in my hand luggage again as they lost the last one I was forced to check-in at LHR. Always good for flight safety this security stuff. :ugh:

But there again, I'm just self loading freight that pays the wages 250 times a year.

[Diver_Dave]

Kudos to the Thomsonfly captain and crew who
bought us back Sunday Lunchtime (767-200)

It took me 3 hrs to get through Lisbon and still have to run to
get to the gate on time only to find I was one of the first through!

Obviously the flight was severely delayed and the announcement by the
Captain was first rate, including the memorable line.

"Don't you think they'd understand that if you open all four security
queues instead of two the mighe be able to deal with twice the amount of people?"

Cue huge laugh from the 40 or so of us who'd boarded at that point.

Ok it wasn't just security, passport control and check in were a nightmare
too, however, his point was well made, humorous and beautifully timed.

Well done to an obviously tired cabin team as well.

DaveA

[GreatCircle]

My understanding is the FFDO program(me) is a farce - but our Yankee cousins will do anything to coax their appetite for firearms anywhere, anytime...

Its not the first time either weapons have disappeared from the lock-box...so frankly, security needs to be intelligence led, before threats arrive at the airport door...and pilots fly the aircraft. Period.

[Shack37]

I-Ford
I think you may be the one watching too many movies. Movies which obviously didn't show what can happen when an AK47 is "shooted" in a pressurised cabin.:rolleyes:

[Life's a Beech]

Paulo

Is it not admitting you are wrong, to make such a dishonest argument?

I never said anyone was untouchable. I cannot see how you could possibly read that into what I said. You have failed to acknowledge my case, and quoted me dishonestly, cutting off the sentence to change the meaning and you have come up with another false argument, an irrelevant story.

If false pilots are getting through the system then security screening them is the least of our concerns.

To add to my previous points, I can bring whatever I like to whichever airport I go to, as I load the aircraft myself, often in airports or airfields with low security. Yet I get searched returning to my aircraft, often by a guard who saw me go groundside a few minutes before, when accompanied by the handling agent. I repeat, the security system is not working, it is looking in places where there is no significant threat, so missing the threats.

Look at the latest farce. You are now not allowed outside terminals in a car, despite the fact that the attack from that position was a humiliation for the terrorists, and that future attacks could be prevented by much simpler measures. In fact I was at an airport recently that has blocked off the dropping-off area with concrete blocks and heavy planters. No-one thought to put the blocks outside the terminal, so cars could drop people off but not ram the building. We are not keeping cars away from other buildings with similar concentrations of people, such as supermarkets. Security arranged by idiots following rules written in knee-jerk reaction.

IATA is at least half right; not sure how airports benefit, but security certainly does not from the current system.

[Matrix2055]

All of this screening is another way of creating more job places. Some time ago I read in Airport Press that many airports have installed special equipment that X-ray the person. The system allowed for a screener to see the person in any layer they would choose. There was a big stink about it, that this kind of equipment will destroy privacy since it’s very easy to see person naked just doing couple clicks on the screen.
But when it comes to shoes, it’s just a bit too much. I just don’t see the point in that. :ugh:

[bravic2007]

Cant understand why major airports not having separate screening for all airline staff... Airport security go crazy when u have a can of deodrant... pax give u stares for jumping the lines...We have a situation where our own ailrline security is worse than the chaps at the airport .. At the same time ground staff/ Engg/ Comm walk into the aircraft using side gates where their passes are only checked.. And pilots given a hard time for deodrants hahahah.. Like we need something physical in a bags to take a/c down......:ugh:

[Ron & Edna Johns]

If passengers want to have any chance of their flights departing on time, then they will continue to understand and accept crew jumping in front where such queues are joint crew/pax!

[ItchyFeet2]

Quote from above: "If passengers want to have any chance of their flights departing on time, then they will continue to understand and accept crew jumping in front where such queues are joint crew/pax!"

(Playing part of devil's advocate) Eh, why should they?

If SLF have to be there in plenty of time to get through security, then so should crew. [This is based on present conditions, I'm all in favour of reduced checks on ID wearers]

Now, before you jump down my throat...

I also believe that this should be included in the duty time for the crew and worse case scenario taken as standard.

If flights are delayed because of crew not getting through security, the powers that be will take notice and do something!

If your flight time limitations are affected because you hjave to allow 2.5 hours before departure, as SLF do, the powers that be will notice very quickly when you start affecting the bottom line!

Just my two pence worth.

IF2

[Bamse01]

If SLF have to be there in plenty of time to get through security, then so should crew. [This is based on present conditions, I'm all in favour of reduced checks on ID wearers]

That is assuming all crew only do one leg per day.
Should airlines schedule 2-3 hrs between connecting flights for crew?
With 1.15-1.30 hrs to shut down ,go through customs/immigration,do flight planning for next leg, go through security, get A/C set up for next flight, time is not abundant. If we spend 30-40 minutes waiting to go through security, I can guarantee the next flight will not leave on time...

[ItchyFeet2]

...Exactly!!!!

and things will change quite rapidly!!!

IF2

[FlexibleResponse]

It's kind of sad to reflect that Security Staff spend 99.999% of their time in proving that innocent staff and passengers are not terrorists (as if we didn't know that already).

I wonder how many terrorists have actually been caught in the security screening process that we all suffer on a day to day basis (or perhaps we are not allowed to ask that question)?

You would think by now that someone would have come up with a better system.

[BigGeordie]

The system as it stands is designed to discourage terrorists, not to catch them. If they don't catch any that proves the system works, sort of...

[Red Top Comanche]

Last time I went through Caen, LFRK, I was security checked, produced my licence, passport, emptied my pockets of my leatherman, two stanley knives a screwdriver etc, then had is all xrayed (including the Leatherman) and my flight bag that had two open water bottles in it and an assortment of tools (I am working on a gite) and walked airside.

Then I walked past the commercial flight disgorging SLF and left on my PA24 a few minutes later.

Security is soooo tight.

[ILoadMyself]

Superb Post.

Please don't do that with your hands, by the way!!

[Ron & Edna Johns]

IF2, you're just being argumentative for the sake of it.

Taking your view, fire engines would queue in traffic whilst on their way to a fire. Football players would queue up behind fans whilst trying to get into a stadium. The ferry Captain would line up with the passengers on the pier when he's trying to get onto his boat to prepare it! How dare any of these people get the jump on others!

Airline Pilots (and other airport workers) are providing a service to passengers. This is not about one-up-manship, it's about getting that service provided as efficiently as possible under insane circumstances. You want that service, then the need will remain to expedite the service providers through 'security'.

I can't believe I'm wasting my time making such an obvious point? :ugh:

Then again, if we really want to go that way, bring it on! The world will suddenly need DOUBLE the number of pilots, which will translate into big pay rises!

[Dream Land]

Quote from above: "If passengers want to have any chance of their flights departing on time, then they will continue to understand and accept crew jumping in front where such queues are joint crew/pax!"
(Playing part of devil's advocate) Eh, why should they?
Feet, I don't get any thrill about going to the front of the line, actually, most pilots would prefer a more organized situation where crews and staff only go through. I have no problem waiting with everyone else, problem is, the price of a ticket will double if the airline has to hire more pilots to do the job. There are many days where I fly four sectors, if my duty day has to provide time for standing in the que each flight, I would never be able to accomplish this, get it?

[A330AV8R]

Out of LHR yesterday and the bell goes off so he asks me to remove my shoes , finally it was my breitling who was the culprit ... so had to put em in the shoes thru the x . . . funny never happened before ..... but the waiting in the buses for crews to go thru the special gate at LHR is sometimes just ridiculous . . . . . . .
Also he asked me to and the other lot to losen our belt buckles and you should have heard the room errupt in laughter when the fat skipper in front of me . . . did the same n dropped his pants hahahahahahahaha was laughing in my head for the next 10 hours hahahaha still am . . . . .
:E

[Bomber Harris]

I have been reluctant to point out security breeches on pprune for a long time, because it is potentially passing info to terrorists. However, there is so much info on this thread now I don't think it matters any more!!

Anyway, there are two huge disgraceful inconsistencies I see regularly.

1. At on major UK airport the police walk through staff security without removing radios, bobby hats or any of the regalia they carry. They obviously set off the detectors, but are not searched. The police has been infiltrated by reporters, so why not terrorists. There has never been a case of a terrorist getting a job as an airline pilot then committing a terror act. There are terrorists using the police force as a method of gaining power in many countries in which there is a power struggle, but in the UK it is restricted to reporters looking for a storey at the moment!! As an airline pilot I WILL NOW DEMAND that the police are searched when I see it happening.
2. Same goes for Customs Officers at another airport. They bring through CARS without the boots being searched. A customs officer’s family at gunpoint could end my life and the life of my passengers. THEY MUST BE SEARCHED.

I really think these exceptions to the rule are disgusting while pilots are being exposed to unnecessarily high levels of security

[rsuggitt]

You dont have much imagination.

If I were a potential terrorist, and knew that crew were not being searched at security, the first thing I'd do is buy / make / steal a flight crew uniform, get airside, and plant a bomb somewhere. I wouldnt necessarily want to fly a plane and crash it.

I'm somewhat appalled that some professional commercial pilots see themselves as being above the needs of security. If you bypass security you may make life more convenient for yourselves, but you open a gaping insecure hole for everyone else.

[kinsman]

Frankly unless this government gets a handle on security and stops knee jerk measures the industry is going to grind to a halt.

As for the screening of crew the whole issue at airports like Gatwick is nonsense. I get searched, asked to remove my shoes and am told I can't take drinks, Leatherman’s or screwdrivers to work anymore. However, they seem perfectly happy for me to take command of a 230 ton aeroplane and sit with any number of items on my flight deck that could do far more damage than a screwdriver! At other airports crew and passengers go through the same security screening, this to me makes no sense, crew and passengers should always go through separate areas.

I doubt the security in the UK will put off any determined terrorist. The security measures at some overseas airports void a lot of the precautions in the UK anyway! The best way to ensure security is for our government to tighten our boarders and do something about the large number of persons in this country who should not be here! I would also like to see an end to political correctness and see the security services given far more power to deal with those who clearly support the aims of those who perpetrate these acts either by deed or support in the form of protests. Such individuals in my view should be shown the door or charged with treason!

[Ladusvala]

In that case rsuggit, this gaping hole already exists, Police officers and custom officials are not screened.

[expat400]

rsuggit...


If the terrorist doesn't want to crash a plane but "only" blow up a lot of people, why would he bother going airside?
He would probably simply walk into the check in area with a bag full of explosives and....
Ahhh, gave you an idea now? Your next suggestion will be to screen all pilots at the parking lot...:ugh:

[fortuna76]

Good morning,

if I may add some points to the discussion:

First of all, it is uther nonsense to believe that you can secure a large object like an international airport. It´s just impossible, there will be inevitably trucks going through unchecked, police officers passing with guns, holes in the fence if you want to keep it more simple, etc. etc. Since I am working in the GA sector, I find it surprising how different the various security checks are. It can go as far as a half naked walk through the x-ray followed by a frisking which gets dangerously close to sexual harrasment (with the family jewels being moved from left to right to check inbetween, I kid you not). However at other airports there is no security at all, basically you walk straight to the plane, full stop. Both these airports would allow me to fly to say LHR and there I am still on airside. I do not mind the security checks itself if they would suit a purpous, however find it difficult to accept that at airport A, I have to take of my shoes and at B I can walk through with an uzi if I felt like.

Offcourse looking at the big picture it makes more sense. I am not a suspect for terrorism, neither are my passengers. Real safety agents and police officers know this, so they leave me alone. However there is a 50% chance I will pass through an airport which is either window dressing for good looks, or they have those 20 year old boys who love to see a skipper take his shoes of....

All of this is avoiding the real problem which is the question of WHY? Why does somebody feel the urge to kill himself along with a hundred other people. Why do people fly into buildings, or drive through the front side of the terminal. And what are we doing to make them go mad like that. If you look at the background of suicide bombers in the middle east, it is clear that they would rather sit in there back garden living a long and happy live, but because of religion, politics or social pressure they feel obligated to take the road of martyrship. This is fuelled by our actions in the west and even more today with the cowboys from the new world driving like madman through a land that they do not understand and that they do not want to understand. Just to make something very clear: I am not defending terrorism, I am just saying that I do not believe we can win the war on terrorism with guns. And we will surely not win it by taking away a babies bottle of water...... A bit of understanding and respect will go a lot further then to start shooting or making everybody nervous with this whole code yellow, code red nonsense (any psychologist will tell you that this will drive people mad in the end).

Ohh, and on the point of skipping the cue at the airport, well I do it all the time and do not feel bad about it, because I simple cannot affort to wait half an hour for 8 times a day. I must be passing the security about 1000 times per year. The avarage pax about 2 times a year. There is a big difference there. Never has anybody bothered me for jumping the cue, they do understand.

[rsuggitt]

You know, I dont know what a terrorist might want to do. We've seen them taking over aircraft and crashing them, we've seen them trying to ram doors and get cars into airport buildings, and doubtless we'll see them doing many other things that we hadnt anticipated in the future. So lets just close as many doors as we can, eh ? That's something we all have to take part in.

[fox niner]

expat400:

Your next suggestion will be to screen all pilots at the parking lot...

Even beter would be to screen pilots when they apply for their job!!
Hold on....wait a minute, that is already being done. Sorry. Just shows how senseless it is.
As someone said before, feels like football players queueing up together with the fans at a football stadium.

[Bomber Harris]

quote from rsuggit: "I'm somewhat appalled that some professional commercial pilots see themselves as being above the needs of security. If you bypass security you may make life more convenient for yourselves, but you open a gaping insecure hole for everyone else."

I'm so glad you used the word "some" in that sentence!!

Firstly re-read (or read) my post just above yours. That says most of what i want to tell you and proves that i am not part of "some".

Secondly, i want to say that "very few", as opposed to "some", pilots regard themselves as being above security. "Almost all" pilots see it as a necessary function. What is being pointed out here is that the function of security has fundemental error in its direction and emphasis.

The point made over and over again by "some" pilots is that real pilots do not destroy aircraft and kill people (not on purpose at least) and if they wanted to they have all the means they require at their disposal without the need to invent exploding toothpaste. So it is more important to determine if the person passing through security dressed as a pilot is an imposter or the real thing, rather than taking his shoes off and rattling the crown jewels. Oh, and then make sure he/she doesn't have an axe in his flight bag (surely somebody has told security about the dicotomy, they must feel so stupid when they take a pocket knife away from us, or maybe "some" of them are not bright enough to realise??).

I hope i have made this clear, in a polite a way as possible. This has been said many times over by "some" discerning pilots, but the message has got watered by, eh, sewage!

[TangoUniform]

C'mon girls,
This nonsense "they screen me, then I go take control of the airplane, why should I be screened", is ridiculous. Do you know who every "pilot" is that goes through a security gate? Are you really who your ID says you are? Are you really the pilot of flt XXX? Lots of stories about IDs, passports, pilot and cc crew uniforms going missing. Do you want all 4-20 cabin crew going through security as well? Of course you do. Get off this, "I have a crash ax and control of the airplane......" nonsense. I don't know who your are and you don't know who I am. Quit whinning and just get on with it. I hate doing the drill as much as the next person....take your shoes off, take your belt off, take you computer out of your flight kit, do this, do that........the whole idea is to limit access to those that might do harm. They key word, "limit". I don't want someone on my a/c that just showed a fake ID, in a fake uniform and bypassed through security that might have some "goodies" with him. Think outside the box, fellas.

[SLFguy]

"finally it was my breitling who was the culprit ... "


:rolleyes:

[brain fade]

Lets see this from the pint of view of a terrorist.

You steal a uniform and get hold of a pass. Are 'security' going to stop you? No.

You get airside, now what? I mean how on earth are you going to get airborne? You've no chance of getting an airliner, complete with crew and pax off the deck!

Now at a small regional airport, you might just be able to get airborne in a decent sized bizjet (maybe after a bit of web or book based training) and do some damage somewhere.

So maybe the 'threat' (which presumably we are trying to frustrate by searching crew so thoroughly) from bogus pilots is actually greater at the very places with the least security.

btw I still maintain that a brief contact with 'security' (check pass etc) is necessary, but I really am sure that the full shoes off, x-ray confiscation of 'contraband' regime in force now is way over the top.

[Bomber Harris]

tabgo uniform...thats exactly what i was saying a year ago. but i've changed my mind. i have read what some more learned people than me have written and i have listened, and finally agreed. this goes way beyond the superficial stuff you suggest (fake uniforms, IDs etc).

This is not whining or nonsense in way. There is a better way of doing it.

Lets face, i don't need to take control of an airplane. I already have it!!! But i may be brainwashed by extremists into believing that killing myself and all my passengers will make the world a better place. There is a process, known in security, as BioScreening and a number of other related security processes. They are fallible but much better than anything we've got at the moment. By doing REAL background checks and REAL identity checks you can be "more" certain that the pilot in question is who he or she say they are, and therefore not willing to commit mass murder.

your "enough of this whining" tone is "pub talk". Elbow on the bar, holding court with your mates slagging off the whingers. (Exactly they way i deal with things:ok:) But i was convinced otherwise, so if you don't believe have a chat with a security person who holds a position higher that shoe remover, and they may be aware of some of the more expensive and safer ways to do things, but the home office or the BAA wont stump up for.

So TU, i guess you will either listen, or throw a punch because it something you don't understand :ouch:

[Dream Land]

C'mon girls,
This nonsense "they screen me, then I go take control of the airplane, why should I be screened", is ridiculous. Do you know who every "pilot" is that goes through a security gate? Are you really who your ID says you are? Are you really the pilot of flt XXX? Lots of stories about IDs, passports, pilot and cc crew uniforms going missing. Do you want all 4-20 cabin crew going through security as well? Of course you do. Get off this, "I have a crash ax and control of the airplane......" nonsense. I don't know who your are and you don't know who I am. Quit whinning and just get on with it. I hate doing the drill as much as the next person....take your shoes off, take your belt off, take you computer out of your flight kit, do this, do that........the whole idea is to limit access to those that might do harm. They key word, "limit". I don't want someone on my a/c that just showed a fake ID, in a fake uniform and bypassed through security that might have some "goodies" with him. Think outside the box, fellas.
TU, if you were serious about security, you would realize that operating crews shouldn't be going through the same checkpoints as the passengers, why, because we already have control of the aircraft, once you are in the terminal, what separates you from access to the aircraft, my guess is that it's some additional layer of security that verifies CREW from PAX, are you with me? Why make the crews go through the passenger security check point, prior to the crew check point, the whole architecture of airports must be updated IMO, while flight crews are being scrutinized, potential terrorists may be slipping through, lol. :hmm:

[TangoUniform]

Geez, You guys still don't get it. Of course bioscreening, separate screening, more sensible security checks of said crew would be a vast improvement. But what many are saying here is, "why should I be subject to the same screening since I will be in control of the aircraft. If I want to do damage, I can certainly do it once my hands are on the controls".

Take it from the point of view of securing the airport, not just the aircraft. How do you identify yourself as an operating crew? By showing a little plastic ID and being in uniform. But, let's say you're a bad guy that just wants to get into the secure area with some bad stuff. "Hey, I am a pilot, I don't need to go through this whole security thing because I am in uniform, have a plastic ID and I will have control of the a/c".

Get the point. Until there is a better more sensible type screening for all airport personnel and flight crew, and even pax, everyone should be subject to the same type of screening.

So again, suck it up, stop the whinning, and work for a solution with biometrics or some other form of security. You get head of the line priviledges at most airports or seperate screening.Give me a better solution that doesn't cost anymore than what we have right now. I'm all for it. In the states they did it with jumpseat by implementing CASS. The gate agent can access your identity. But again, I don't want some chucklehead or disgruntled employee going through security with some bad stuff, as was done in the '80s with PSA and later with FedEx. Both disgruntled employees that got through with weapons. But hey, they were employees. :ugh:

[Dream Land]

Take it from the point of view of securing the airport, not just the aircraft. How do you identify yourself as an operating crew? By showing a little plastic ID and being in uniform. But, let's say you're a bad guy that just wants to get into the secure area with some bad stuff. "Hey, I am a pilot, I don't need to go through this whole security thing because I am in uniform, have a plastic ID and I will have control of the a/c".
If you read a bit of the thread, I think you will figure out that we are saying the same thing, make our ID's more secure and don't treat us like passengers, your wasting our time and their's. Where I live in the states, FFDO's (Federal Flight Deck Officer, armed pilot :eek:) go through a separate security check point, not in site of passengers, how can this happen? Well if it can happen for them, it can happen for operating crew, duh!

[ChristiaanJ]

Another subject done to death.
I'm unsubscribing. Enjoy yourselves.

[rsuggitt]

"You steal a uniform and get hold of a pass. Are 'security' going to stop you? No.
You get airside, now what? I mean how on earth are you going to get airborne? You've no chance of getting an airliner, complete with crew and pax off the deck!"

But I dont want to get a plane off the deck. If I can get airside with some sort of explosive device(s) in my posession, and if I can get to the baggage area, I'll try and plant them in baggage that's waiting to be loaded. A ferw hours later three planes in flight crash due to explosions in the baggage hold.
Or maybe I can just destroy a plane on the ground.
Or get to a fuel truck
Or the fuel farm
Or an antenna
Or just park a car on the runway.

[Dream Land]

I'm somewhat appalled that some professional commercial pilots see themselves as being above the needs of security. If you bypass security you may make life more convenient for yourselves, but you open a gaping insecure hole for everyone else. I'm afraid your logic doesn't make a lot of sense to me, maybe you could help me, you see, at some point in the security process, pilots must access the airside of the airport, pilot's are not passengers and they shouldn't be screened as such, people that have access to airside, need to be screened separately, engineers, ramp personnel of all sorts. If you are so PRO security, focus in on the passengers. You say, anyone can get a pass and a uniform, well that's what a staff checkpoint is there for, they focus on who is staff, and who is not staff, I guess by your logic, no one should have access to airplanes because anyone can fake an ID? Who will fly? :ugh:

[rsuggitt]

Tell you the truth, I have no idea who designed the security systems that everyone seems to be complaining about. Maybe they are not perfect. Maybe they could be replaced with different screening procedures in different places. But whatever replaces them has to be capable of detecting or deterring many different possible threats.... probably many more than you or I could imagine.

The one issue about a security check that is designed to deter is that it has to be very visible, especially on those attack routes that are easiest. The fact that a potential terrorist can see aircrew going through the same security checks as everyone else is in itself a deterrent to masquerading as flight crew.

[rsuggitt]

By the way, anyone remember 9/11 ?

Wouldnt you want to do everything in your power to prevent another one ?

[fortuna76]

For some reason this tread has ended op with the opinions of:

a) I am a pilot and therefore above security
b) Get into line like everybody else

The point I was trying to make is that current security measures are not effective. They are expensive, time consuming, degrading, but other then window dressing they are good for nothing.

Security is in the business of either trying to make it look good, or trying to make some money out of it. If there was a serious point to it, I would gradly cooperate, because it would make me feel safer, but at most airports there just isn´t.

Security staff are not trained professionals. These people are not trained for the job, they are hired straight of the street and put on duty the same day. A few examples of what this leads to: My id concists of an officially approved government id, for which I needed to be screened and the plastic card which my company makes on their PC. Guess which one interests them; yes the nice plastic card (it has bright colors which must attract them). The other day I tried out my expired id, and I had no problem getting in. So i decided to try my airmiles card, guess what.... no problem I was in (I did have to take my shoes of though :ugh:).

If you ever have to go to a US embassy you can see what real security is about. It will take you about an hour to get in with a briefcase, but you feel really safe inside. The problem is that this level of security is not feasible at an airport, so let´s stop pretending that it is.

I am wandering when (we) the people will say enough is enough. Every time some new security measure is put in place we have to bow our heads because it is nessecary in the interest of safety. But is it really. I know somebody who runs a bar at my homebase airport. Since we have black labelled water as a terrorist substance he is doing great business. With the price of water increased from 1 euro to 2,50 :D he is really getting loaded. Why is it illegal to bring in a bottle of water, but it´s ok to buy a bottle of whisky once you have passed the golden barrier. Those bottles are not screened, apart from the obvious fact that at 40%+ alcohol they are dangerous substances in themselfs....

The most utter nonsense must be the code green, yellow, red thing. I cannot remember when we were in code green. It seems to me that we are always in code yellow which is sometimes increased to code red (usually after an attack has been commited :D). So the government announces code red, now what am I suppost to do? Look over my shoulder the whole day, checking out all my pax for suspicious people (which I would offcourse do according to the politically correct norm), just call in sick maybe and sit at home in fear? Reality is that this bahaviour from the government only serves to create fear and does not help me at all. If they go for code red (and they probably have good reason to do so), why inform the public......

Last week I was re-reading brave new world. I have to say that we have come amazingly close to the fantasy of a man half a century ago. In some ways we have outpast that fantasy :(

[ZeBedie]

But there's no need to take anything bigger than a box of matches (which security will not detect) airside. Then you nick an avgas bowser and drive it under the nearest 747...

[Jose Cuervo]

The one issue about a security check that is designed to deter is that it has to be very visible, especially on those attack routes that are easiest. The fact that a potential terrorist can see aircrew going through the same security checks as everyone else is in itself a deterrent to masquerading as flight crew.

Can anyone actually produce some evidence of a situation where a terrorist dressed as a pilot hijacked an aircraft? Of course we all know about Frank W. Abagnale and his efforts to travel around the world masquerading as a pilot, but this was definately a one-off ocurrence and with the measures to keep unauthorised people off the flight deck these days, it seems unlikely that someone could repeat his efforts.

We all seem to forget that the 911 terrorists weren't pretending to be pilots. They didn't have uniforms on. They were simply passengers with a limited understanding of operating an airliner. Now we have locked flight deck doors and a very good reason is needed to open those doors in flight.

Given these facts, what is the real reason for security screening pilots with passengers?

[Dream Land]

Can anyone actually produce some evidence of a situation where a terrorist dressed as a pilot hijacked an aircraft? Did you ever wonder why jump seating went away immediately after 9/11? :eek:

[TINTIN25]

I think security should leave pilots alone. They have done so much training and hard work to gain their Airline jobs. It is really pointless because if they wanted to kill everyone they are at the controls of the plane.

[rsuggitt]

I cant believe that so many people here are thinking of terrorists as someone who wants to take control of or crash or steal an aircraft. Sorry, but you gotta start thinking outside your box. I know it's hard, but start thinking like a terrorist who wants to cause damage and injury ANY WAY HE/SHE CAN. One person with evil intent who can get airside and eg get to a fuel truck can cause immense damage.

[Antonio Montana]

Rsuggitt,
I am a professional pilot, and operate out of one of the UK's major airports.
IF I was a terrorist, I would not even bother trying to gain access airside through the terminal's after all the boundry fences are not that hard to scale or even cut through.

Of course I could get a RPG and fire it out of a van, say a nice luton 3.5 tonne with a hole in the roof, at the end of one of the runways.

I do not have a problem with any security measures, but the security officers employed at my airport, and I am sure its not the only one, are not in any way professional, just jumped up little dictators.

Tony

[rsuggitt]

Hi Tony,

"Rsuggitt,
I am a professional pilot, and operate out of one of the UK's major airports. IF I was a terrorist, I would not even bother trying to gain access airside through the terminal's after all the boundry fences are not that hard to scale or even cut through."

Yup, that's another method of attack.

"Of course I could get a RPG and fire it out of a van, say a nice luton 3.5 tonne with a hole in the roof, at the end of one of the runways."

And that's another.

And if we all put our heads together, I'm sure we could come up with lots more.
And then if we're all sensible, we'd try to come up with ways to prevent them.
Which, actually, is what we're doing.

"I do not have a problem with any security measures, but the security officers employed at my airport, and I am sure its not the only one, are not in any way professional, just jumped up little dictators."

So the problem is not so much the idea of security measures, but the way they're implemented and the people who implement them. Which part of the issue really needs solving, and how could be be solved ?

RS

[busty bird]

:confused:

What is it that makes captains (overpaid bus drivers of the sky) think that they are so special that they are 'above' the security restrictions that EVERYONE else is subjected to!:D

When are Flight Deck going to realise Airport Staff and Security Staff do NOT make the rules - we just suffer the consequences of the abuse from staff who object to them, and the rath of the Department for Transport Inspectors if we do not adhere to them!!

I would have thought that so called 'proffesionals' would have had a bit more understanding and respect.
You may comment that security satff are not always as 'polite' as you would like - well maybe flight crews are not always as 'polite as they should be!!

I do not actaully agree with the current restrictions and I also feel they are more about PR than about actually making people safer - but I don't get to choose if I'm searched or not when I go through Security Numerous times during a 12hr shift - so please can you remind me why flight deck are so special? And I'm not interested in the whole 'well if they really wanted to kill everyone they would crash the a/c theory'.

I think the worst behaviour I've ever heard is a Capt 'concealing' a bottle of aftershave in his pants - because it was apparently 'essential' he have it with him during his 3hr flight!!!????:ugh:

I have enough to deal with passengers and think a little bit of understanding wouldn't go amiss!!:sad:

[Say again s l o w l y]

"I was only doing what I was told" has been the precursour to some of the most horrific events in human history. Rules are no excuse for loss of common sense or just being an ar*e.

It is essential that all crew members get through security as fast as possible, otherswise the system can break down.

Crews go through the rigmarole of security checks and get these nice laminates passes so when we get subjected to sarky comments, blatantly obvious idiocy and bad attitudes from security staff its no wonder people get annoyed. All pilots are trying to do is get to work.

A bit of understanding goes both ways.

[busty bird]

What do you think Airport / Handling Agent / Airline / Security staff are trying to do when they are going through security checks?? Get to work maybe??

Again why do Pilots think they are different??

Honestly I don't understand?

:rolleyes:

[llondel]

Perhaps if the security checks were pared to the useful, with all the window dressing removed, we'd all feel happier because there would at least be understandable reasons for the checks. The liquids one is so easy to circumvent unless you ban all liquids for everyone, that it might as well not be there unless you're going to analyse the contents of each container. some of the "sharp" implements are no more dangerous than the free pens provided on some flights. There are other things allowed on flights that are probably far more dangerous, but this is probably not the place to bring them up.

[Say again s l o w l y]

No, but why does it seem that flight crew (I'm not just talking about the pilots here) get singled out for special attention?

This is a pilots website and I am a pilot, so obviously I'm going to talk from my point of view. Everyone trying to get through security is going somewhere.

However, it IS different for crews, we are more obvious to the passengers and it doesn't exactly do them any good to see their pilots and cabin crew getting man-handled before they get to the aircraft. Most of them are stressed to 90 anyway. Did you read the report that came out showing the stress levels of pasengers going through Heathow? It was frightening.

Why is it that I always see security staff just wandering back from a break and not going through the same checks?

You have already shown you have an attitude towards pilots. Why is that? I always try and be as polite as possible to security, even if I have been treated rudely or aggressively. I have only seen one incicdent of an argument between a pilot and a security guard and the pilot was totally justified in my book. ther than that, I have seen nothing that would suggest pilots have an attitude towards secuity staff.

We all know these security checks are a load of nonsense, we put up with them because we have to. Having a separate entrance for crew would be a good start or staff who don't automatically treat you like a terrorist.

Yes, it must be a mind numbing job and having to deal with that many people is bound to be wearing, but a bit of courtesy wouldn't go amiss.

[overstress]

Pilots are different because they are in charge of security on board. They object to being treated as part of the problem!

What issues have you with that?

[Litebulbs]

Edited coz I just can't be bothered

[Litebulbs]

No, sod it, I can!

Madam/Sir pilots. You are paid the most. Very skilled people and I trust my life in you every time I fly. Every time we all have to go through the 5hite that is security, lead and set an example to the rest of us. If we all have to go through it, then set the standard and take us with you. If you want to be my Captain, then Once More Into The Breach.

[jshg]

An interesting point in the Letters page of yesterday's Torygraph :
Your average terrorist fanatic wanting to punish the British infidels has only to check into a flight as a passenger from a BAA airport (a form of martyrdom in itself). Chances are his explosive-packed bag will be lost like thousands of others, and will not travel on his aircraft. It will blow up somewhere in the middle of LHR, or possibly on one of the cargo aircraft flying all the lost baggage around the world, causing confusion and alarm for the forseeable future ......

[rigpiggy]

Litebulbs "Madam/Sir pilots. You are paid the most."

not freaking likely, unless your one of the chosen few going to a legacy carrier most f/o's start at 28K/annum starvation wages in any parlance. Add to that living within 1 hr of your base"very expensive" and a chance of being unemployed every 6months, pension shortfalls, reduced T&C's, etc.... Oh and Tennyson's Light Brigade doesn't tell you that after the initial charge most staff officers retired and left the "private soldier's" to the grinder. Sound familiar anyone, Beuller, Beuller

[Lord Lucan]

busty bird

I think the worst behaviour I've ever heard is a Capt 'concealing' a bottle of aftershave in his pants

If this is the worst behaviour you ever heard – you must lead a sheltered life.;)

To me this attitude encapsulates everything that is wrong with so called security. Is this captains aftershave a genuine security problem? I think not. Nothing is endangered. The captain, we presume, did not use the concealed aftershave in some Hollywood fantasy terror plot. It is the whole focus on rules, rather than genuine risk, that is a major problem.

Security as currently conceived is obvious nonsense. Airport security is just theatre. Anyone who has to deal with it as passenger or crew can see this. And they can see a squillion ways that this security could be subverted. Misplaced concern about aftershave typifies the obsession with being obedient little drones rather than any real concern for safety.

And one other thing.

Airport Staff and Security Staff do NOT make the rules - we just suffer the consequences of the abuse from staff who object to them

This is known as the Nuremberg defence. (I was just following orders). I didn’t work last time. Each person has to think for themselves and not mindlessly do what they are told.

It is airside workers and passengers who suffer from the unthinking rule-following of airport security.

[verticalhold]

Total loss of temper here. This is a pilot's web site and I am heartily sick of the non-aviators with their ignorant contributions. "over paid bus drivers." Just try and get our qualifications and experience. Better yet just try and get through the weeding out processes. As for our pay I'm one of the lucky ones. I feel mighty sorry for many of my colleagues.

Litebulbs I set the standards with my professionalism and my skills. Arriving at the aircraft angry and stressed because of the utter stupidity of our current system is not good for my concentration or your safety. And please don't forget that we might go through the nausea several times a day.

Before training as a pilot I was an infantry officer and served in some remarkably unfriendly places. From my own knowledge of security systems and methods I believe the bad guys are winning. They have us by the balls because our political leaders don't have the courage or common sense to introduce positive screening in terminals or to see how poor perimeter security is at airports.

Not very long ago a touch of Irish in your accent guaranteed you a tug from security. I never once heard a complaint about that. Now people are s**t scared of upsetting a moslem minority. Well the Irish were and are a minority too aren't they? Or does/did their skin colour/various religeons make it ok?

Rant over (Really p***ed off by security at a certain midlands airport this morning)

VH

[Teddy Robinson]

One of the most laughable aspects of crew security is the lack of consistancy and joined up thinking: given the recent coverage of the baggage chaos in Rome consider what a local security edict means in practical terms

You are operating a 3 sector day from the UK, finishing in Rome, your home for the next 4 nights, so you go with your bags to the crew security entrance.

"New rule, you have to check your crew bag in" !!

Presumably the luminaries in the security department have taken into account that getting the whole crew to the terminal at FCO and back to the stand within the 45 minute turnaround is unlikely, and that the chance of them having their crew bags with them when they return is close to zero !

So, the crew stands around on the tarmac at destination to grab their bags from the handlers as they are unloaded, and restows them in the crew compartment to fly back to the same UK airport.

Like we have nothing better to do !

And how does this in any way increase the safety of the travelling public ??? :D

[SLFguy]

"Arriving at the aircraft angry and stressed because of the utter stupidity of our current system is not good for my concentration or your safety. "

You get 'angry and stressed'???

P*ssed off I can understand but if you are 'angry and stressed' then I suggest for all our sakes you pack the job in pal.

I think nurses on A&E are entitled to be 'angry and stressed'....but you having to take your shoes off......nah.

[Skipness One Echo]

A bit like "Baggage left unattended will be removed and may be destroyed"
Imagine my surprise when upon arrival at LHR Terrible One I wandered off the Novembers into the baggage reclaim to see a mountain of baggage left unattended at both the BA and BMI desks, both of which......were unattended.



Security is a farce and you have my utmost sympathy. I struggle to contain myself as a passenger with these absurd rules once a week. My heart goes out to you every day, because that drip, drip drip of stupidity will have a corrosive effect on your life.

[verticalhold]

SLFGuy you try it three or four times a day see if you aren't stressed by the unnecesary delays you get put through. And always in the background the pressure to get the aircraft prepared, keep to slot times and above all not miss anything that may compromise the safety of the flight.

Lets face it if we go off the end of the runway, mis-read a sid in briefing or f*** up in any of the thousand and one ways available the human factor of the crew were held up in security and only just made it to the aircraft in time will not be brought out in our defence.

We recently experimented at one airport by sending half our pilots through security in civvy clothes for a week (basically covering up white shirts and no badges or braid visible). Oddly they all got to the aircraft faster than their uniformed colleagues. Personally I don't have a problem with removing my shoes just with being forced into a crowded bottleneck which is a magnificent target and then seeing and experiencing the utter stupidity of the current system.

As for ER nurses I go home to one. She like me is angry at idiocy from people ignorant of her job and trying to tell her how to do it. Otherwise we both love what we do.

VH

[JamesA]

Verticalhold,
I take it from your Brown job days you were one of the 'over the top and at 'em guys' In another life I was a Blue job and still remember a 'Professional' of airfield security, i.e. R.A. F. Regiment (they, for the uninformed, whose job is to defend airfields, -all others, excuse egg sucking lesson), who stated on a briefing that 'It is impossible to secure the perimeter of an airfield. It would require too many personnel. You can only select strategic buildings and areas to defend.' And, this is from the days when we didn't know everybody by name in the R.A.F., unlike today.
I say this to you, not to knock your knowledge of security systems but, to agree with you that the lords and masters of government need to stand up, take some flak and segregate the minorities who are suspected as potential 'bad guys'. They were quick enough to do it in Northern Ireland in the 70s, but I suppose they were doing it to Brits (mainly) and, that was allowed.
My solution is to get professionals to lay down a sensible, working set of conditions. Train the front line staff properly to use a little common sense, even pay them a proper wage so they just might take an interest in the job. and make the airports, working environments for the purpose of moving freight, SL or otherwise efficiently. Safety and security doesn't have to be exercised under great tension, awareness is the word that springs to mind.

[Dozza2k]

Now I always thought us as crew being searched so thoroughly and being subject to the same requirements was a load of crap. Now it seems the outgoing BAA chap thinks event the pax screening isn't working!!!

Is it going to change.........ever?

d2k. stressed at crew security.

http://www.contingencytoday.com/online_article/Heathrow-Passenger-Checks~-Time-To-Get-Smarter-and-Faster/483

[rsuggitt]

"Now it seems the outgoing BAA chap thinks event the pax screening isn't working!!!"

I've just read the article (quickly) but I didnt see where he says it 'isnt working'.

[Dozza2k]

yeh i guess, but this

"BAA's own former head of security and now consultant to foreign authorities, Norman Shanks, criticised the high level of hand-searching done "just to meet a target ratio". He believed that the requirement to hand search 50 per cent of departing passengers (which the Department of Transport refuses to confirm publicly) might actually reduce rather than enhance security, because of the impossible level of constant alertness demanded of security staff, whose attention would inevitably waver".


I just figured the reduce security angle was his view of it not working. Not in his words though I guess.

[fortuna76]

Dear busty bird,

As said by somebody above, there is no need to call us overpaid bus drivers. One because most pilots are definately underpaid. And two because this still is a pilots bulletin board. Now I see that you are a ground ops manager. I would most welcome you to state your opinion on the board, since even though you are not a pilot you would have interesting knowledge of the ground side of aviation. But if that opinion is that we are stupid idiots then I cannot appreciate this and I would strongly suggest you to not write this.

I assume that your opinion of pilots is based on experience with someone, and I am sorry if your encounter with some pilot was that bad, but not all pilots are stupid. There are very sensible individuals out there who respect all people doing the job for to make the flight happen as well as their passengers. I wish to think that I respect the ground crew that is supporting me from the gate agent to the fueller to the guy who cleans the toilet. I just hope that you can extend the same politeness to me.

Many thanks! :ok:

[JOE-FBS]

As very regular SLF I find the security mania bad enough so can only imagine how it feels to you who face it every day. Anyway, the point of my post: a recent issue of Private Eye noted that one of the UK government's newly appointed security leaders (I forget which and have lost the magazine) also sits on the board of a business that makes money selling security services. Yes, the bad guys are out there but how are we supposed to have faith in civil servants and politicians when they operate like this?

[Life's a Beech]

rsugitt

It seems to be you lacking the imagination. The only point in attacking aviation is the extra damage due to the aircraft's energy. Blowing up something on the ground in an airport is no more effective than blowing up something somewhere else. Why on earth would a terrorist go through the effort and risk of getting stopped by going airside, to an almost-deserted apron, when he could kill far more people in Tesco?

Litebulbs

Don't talk about what you don't understand. I know commercial pilots who earn less than average wage. You can trust your life to them every time you fly. They are professionals. What help is there to anyone making them go through passenger security checks?

[busty bird]

Fortuna 76,
I do apologise fully for a very unnecessary comment about pilots......I do respect that it is not an easy job - honestly I'm just starting out with my PPL..
Yes I had had a bad day and had to deal with a very very rude Capt who seemed to think it was perfectly acceptable for me to risk my job by ignoring the current security rules to suit him. He wasn't a nice man and he did seem to think he was far more important than any other person walking this earth, and I was not prepared to ignore the fact that he had been abusive to a member of staff. But it is wrong for me to take that out on any other pilot that happens to be out there - and yes there are plenty out there that are very nice and several that I am very good mates with.
So SORRY, honestly it was wrong SORRY!:oh:
In just the same way there are plenty of security staff that are a pain in the bloody arse too I know, but lots that are just doing their best to do a good job.
Security staffing is all about getting numbers through the door now - not about quality at all. And while it's run by airports who are far more interested in trying to make money out of more and more shops that in security it will remain the same.
I'm not sure about the 'use your common sense' and 'don't just stick to the rules' still. I would love to have that luxury - but it is part of my job (sorry not updated my profile ever, I'm not ops controller but Terminal Manager) to ensure that the current security restrictions are enforced and that we comply to the legislation that is served on the Airport by the DfT. Believe me when I can I do try to 'bend' the rules.....but there is only so far that I can go. I constantly have the DfT breathing down my neck doing covert tests and giving out a bollocking as soon as look at you...like when 6 passengers in the last hour passed through OBC with 2 pieces of hand baggage - like that was likely to be putting everyone at a huge risk!???
I do do what I can but I can't change the rules and I don't have the luxury to be able to ignore them - it could easily cost me my job.
What's the answer? Do I start a one man rebellion and just decide that the security restrictions should just be ignored? Doubt I'd last the day out...
OK - Quick question for you. Since 9/11 the use of Flight Deck jump seats for non-op crew or anyone else was banned - DfT Direction on the Airlines. So you guys up front cannot take your wife / girlfriend / husband / kids on the flight deck to see you doing your job.......
Does it happen still, sometimes maybe, probably - but if flight deck are caught what are the consequences? Recently DfT inspector found a Captains 7 year old son in the jump seat before pushback. Capt was reported to his company and was suspended pending full investigation:=, luckily he kept his job...(good mate of mine)
Stupid rule - of course it is, but would you ignore it? Maybe you would, a bit of a random comparison I know... but I'm interested.
I think the most frustrating thing is that the current security of Airports is far more about PR and making the public believe they are safer than actually making it safer!
As I think someone has said it's more aout money than a lot of people realise - selling x-rays, AMDs etc is big business.
So what do we do??? I don't know - except take 3 weeks off work and not think about it for a while! So that's what I'm doing. (and not a plane either....can't stand all the bloody queues at Airport Security!)
Lets just try to be a bit nicer to each other!!:):ok:

[Life's a Beech]

Busty Bird

Would you agree, that there is aserious problem with the current security rules? That seems to be the main problem here. Some of the staff are rude or irrational (I have met them) but it would help a lot if they employed competent staff under sensible rules, rather than whoever pitches up, so needing inflexible rules.

[busty bird]

Yes I would agree......

The use of 'discretion' is the hardest thing to train people in - any many will not use it if not paid enough to take the 'risk' as they see it. And also true there are many that are just not capable of it and need the world to be black and white because grey is just too hard for them.

I do think much of the security restrictions are stupid and many since August 10th last year where a ill thought out knee jerk reaction to a plot by one group of nutters using liquid explosives...

I would much rather see a much more capable security staffing - less focused on tubes of bloody tooth paste and more on the profiling of specific passengers. These selectees should not just be people that had pissed off the check-in staff which happens half the time now, but those that fit the current 'threat profiles'.
And yes believe me I'd rather they stopped wasting there time on crews - as long as identities are confirmed before entry in to RZ...

As has been mentioned - whether it was right or not during IRA troubles the movement of Irish and all those pax going to and from Ireland was under the spotlight - still is actually with everyone travelling on CTA flts being recorded on film.

So why can this not be the same today - because it's not politically correct? Because the government is too scared to be seen to be singling a certain group, religion or ethnic minority?? I think so.

Not all Irish people were terrorist - but the IRA were Irish terrorists and the threat at the time.

Not all muslims are terrorists - but that is where the current threat and terrorists are coming from.

[Riverboat]

OK, I think we are all agreed: the current situation is often intolerable and unacceptable. (Verticalhold, I agree with you entirely).

So what is the solution? A bit radical, perhaps, but I think BALPA should call a strike, and/or airline pilots generally go on strike, to protest against what is happening.

It would be a brave course of action (foolhardy, I can hear many saying), but what other way is there to make the point. No one is listening at the moment. Pilots are supposed to be dignified, honourable, and intelligent people, but they are often treated like dirt by some security people.

So there are two problems to attend to: the basic process in the first place, and the odd bit of scum working for security.

I really think there should be a move beyond just complaining, otherwise nothing will happen.

[busty bird]

Strike action - a bit harsh maybe.

As for the complaining - yes but to the right people......

If you are treated badly by a member of security staff yes request to speak to the spvr or team leader...it is not acceptable and should be dealt with.
Believe me managing hundreds of staff on a security section isn't easy and they are far from perfect. But just remember they are having to deal with complaints from pax and crews and staff and anyone else that has an opinion of security....

If it's about the actual process or restrictions it needs to be directed to the ones that come up with the daft rules in the first place - Department of Transport, Government I don't.....but not to the staff that most of the time agree with you!

[Cr4zy]

Hello, everyone!

I agree with BustyBird, I work in the same airport, and I see these security people dealing with problems every minute. It´s not only crew complaining about being screened like passengers, it´s also passengers who think that they are living gods because they travel in business class or they hold whatever gold airmiles card.

As BustyBird said, there are certain rules that they must follow, because that´s what their contract says. they haven´t got the power to bend these rules and they must stick to them. But the rules are general, they are not specific to a group of people. The rule says "Liquid containers of more than 100 ml are not allowed airside through passenger and crew checkpoints", so it´s the bottle that´s not allowed, irrespective of the person carrying it. They have separated screening rules for catering and shops´supplies (money talks), but as long as you are going through a passenger or crew security control, the problem is still the bottle, not who you are.

Of course you may find that these rules are ridiculous. In some ways they actually are. But the rules are set up by a bunch of people in their ivory towers (headquarters´offices) with no connection with the real world we live in. They just have to come up with new ideas to make clear they have been there, working for the company, and then, well, if the ideas work, they get a bonus, if they don´t work, they resign and get a nice pay-off. It´s all about market rules applied to security. But we people in the terminal don´t make the rules, we are just paid to stick to them. Don´t tell me that we should use our common sense, please, because we can´t. If I board an aircraft and the cabin crew start doing their safety procedures briefing about life jackets, I don´t tell them "don´t be ridiculous! We will not be flying over the sea!", because that´s something they have to do following the rules, and they can´t just avoid it even if they think it´s nonsense, I am aware that they still have to do it.

So let´s take it easy on these security boys and girls. OK, a few of them may need some courtesy and politeness lessons, but then again, so do some of my colleagues, and that doesn´t make every one of us an unprofessional bully. I work with them on a daily basis, and yes, I have to go through security about 4-6 times a day, but most of the times, they are polite and correct.

Good night everyone. I´ll take my shoes off again tomorrow morning at the terminal.

Cr4zy

[Bad Robot]

Busty,

One of our Captains was sacked just recently for allowing a relative of his on the Jump seat on a flight to XYZ.
Flight deck visits are only allowed AFTER we have landed and taxied on to stand.

BR.

[verticalhold]

James A;

I tried not to be too over the top and at 'em. Think Captain Blackadder rather than Lord Flasheart! It amazes me that what your RAF Reg colleague said still holds and appears to be ignored by the powers that be.

Some of the security staff I deal with are utter delights, strangely they tend to be retired police/military who have the maturity and humour to carry out their duties and leave the passengers/ staff involved feeling that there has been no imposition and that they have not been inconvenienced. The younger security staff with little self confidence and less knowledge of what they are really doing seem, to me to be where the problems arise.

Someone said on an earlier thread on this subject that maybe we should get the military to take over the security process. Great idea unfortunately most of them are too busy elsewhere!

VH

[rsuggitt]

I dont know whether to laugh or cry.

Look, I utterly respect professional pilots and cabin crew. I trust my life to your skills every time I fly. I know that security is a bore, a frustration, a delay. And I know it's not perfect.

But I just cannot believe how naive some people are regarding the potential threats.

And please remember one thing the IRA once said (or something like it)....
We (the public and establishment) need to be successful in defeating terrorism again and again.
They (the IRA) need to be successful only once.

RS

[Lord Lucan]

rsuggitt

But I just cannot believe how naive some people are regarding the potential threat

Maybe it is you who is naive.

!00% safety is not possible. There is only risk management.

With the so called security, that infests and controls much of aviation today, the terrorist risk is minute, (far far smaller than risks we routinely accept in other areas of our lives) Yet the response is a hysterical, extreme, over-reaction.

And what is more it is obviously ineffective and an expensive waste of everyones time and money.

[rsuggitt]

"With the so called security, that infests and controls much of aviation today, the terrorist risk is minute, (far far smaller than risks we routinely accept in other areas of our lives) Yet the response is a hysterical, extreme, over-reaction."

Maybe. Maybe the politicians and the public need to rethink. But is that the point of the discussion? It's certainly not the title of the thread.

"And what is more it is obviously ineffective and an expensive waste of everyones time and money."

Why ineffective ? Have there been any incidents since the measures were put in place ? Any mayhem caused by people getting weapons onto planes ? Anyone wearing shoes with explosive soles ? Anyone mixing one pint of a colourless liquid with another colourless liquid and making TNT ?

[Lord Lucan]

The alleged explosive shoe didn't work, and as far as we know, this was the only case in the entire history of aviation.

The mixed liquid explosives, as far as we know has never been attempted in any serious organised way.

This security reaction is known as -closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. It is not normally regarded as a sensible or effective response.

[Bad Robot]

In Austria in particular and other European alpine regions, Romania, Croatia, etc; there are large Crosses/Crucifixes, etc, on the peaks of various mountains of the aforementioned regions.
When I asked as to the reason, I was informed by the "locals" that they were there to keep away the Vampires!

Well I have never seen any Vampires in those regions, so it must work then.........:hmm:

BR.

[rsuggitt]

"The alleged explosive shoe didn't work, and as far as we know, this was the only case in the entire history of aviation."

Let's hope there isnt a second.

"The mixed liquid explosives, as far as we know has never been attempted in any serious organised way."

And let's hope no-one does make an attempt in a serious way.

[Lord Lucan]

And let's hope we are not all run over by a bus

[rsuggitt]

Me too !

And when I step out into a road, I look both ways. What do you do ?

[Just wondering]

Just wondering - is it only me (male) that wonders why my bits get rearranged during a body search but nobody in security runs their hands up to the top of a woman's legs under a skirt.

I also never see security emerging from a search below a burka.

I'm not a prude but it realy is starting to get too hands on and personal for me.

[Danny]

I have been advocating "proper" security on this website for many years now. Not the cosmetic, knee jerk, massed screening of bags but the same type of psychological profiling that is proven to work. At the risk of repeating myself yet again, it is not the contents of someones bag that is the main risk. It is the intnent of the person to commit a serious offence that we should be screening for.

There has always been some resistance to "profiling", especially by those who don't understand it properly and in particular by human rights activists who will protest that it will be used selectively and without regard for civil liberties. However, the whole point of profiling is that it doesn't take into account any one item of suspicion on its own. Just as someone's religious belief is not always reflected in their skin colour, it is their demeanour in addition to other clues that alert a properly trained profiler.

It was always argued that the cost of implementing such a scheme would be prohibitively expensive and the additional time required to check-in would not be tolerated. Also, it was suggested that the manpower required to achieve this would be too great.

Well, let's have a look at what we have now... :ugh: Minimum check-in times for long haul flights suggested at three hours and two hours for short haul flights. Massive queues for security searches due to under-investment in staff and equipment as well as nonsensical interpretation of rules with huge waste in resources by screening what can only be termed non-threatening individuals who would ordinarily have been moved on after a very simple question or two by a well trained profiler.

Once more, at the risk of repeating oneself, it is not the contents of someones bag or shoe that is the biggest risk but the intent of the person to act out violence with the intent of disrupting a flight or worse. With the likes of rsuggit advocating blind adherance to the current rules without questioning the logic in use, we have the ideal (for the government of the day) scenario of compliant sheep following the herd in the false belief that the government knows best on how to deal with the problem).

Those of us who go through the different security regimes on a daily basis are in a very good position to see what works and what doesn't. Of course, there are many who believe the warnings of huge calamity if we don't follow the current rules. I mean, how do you hide an elephant in a strawberry field? Well, you paint it's toenails red, of course! It must be working... how many elephants have you seen recently hiding in strawberry fields?

That is the logic that the government are selling us at the moment. How hard has the current minister for transport been questioned on the 'one piece of hand luggage'? Not very hard at all I would suggest. She has even admitted that she will probably relax that stupid rule in a few months but for the time being it must be working because I still haven't seen any elephants hiding in strawberry fields! :rolleyes:

Intelligent, psychological profiling with very basic scanning is all that is needed. Anyone raising a suspicion can be removed from the queue and questioned in more detail and if necessary, searched more thoroughly separately. The rest can move through the scanning queue at a brisker pace. It'll never happen though... too many Muppetlike ministers and their minions have made stupid, knee-jerk decisions and couldn't be seen to have made the wrong ones now... could they?! :ugh:

[fortuna76]

And for those of you who think there is no money being made in the security business:

I had the honor of going through Liverpool airport yesterday. The security was not that bad, but what suprised me was that at the cost of 2 gbp you can go through the security fast lane.... :yuk: Yes boys and girls, you pay 2 pounds and you can jump the line!! Now someone please tell me that this is not just a way of shaking down pax for some loose change. :mad:

[Oxidant]

(Danny)It'll never happen though... too many Muppetlike ministers and their minions have made stupid, knee-jerk decisions and couldn't be seen to have made the wrong ones now... could they?!

Yes, this must be high on the list of why things have not changed!
However, we have had a relaxation in the case of musical instruments.:hmm:
Also, the politicians in a few countries are thinking of exempting themselves! (Should prove interesting if some of them were"profiled")
Lastly, as food for thought. I was deeply saddened by the incident in the current CHIRP, regarding the arrest of an individual, due to what proved to be a false accusation from a security worker. Why then, was that security person not arrested for wasting police time at the very least?
We are, are we not, supposed to be on the same side!?

[jshg]

- And that is the point isn't it? How can we express dissent when we see poor/unfair/unsafe practice? As the pilot in CHIRP found out, any dissent results in the police being called, DNA samples being taken, Standby crew call-out and delays, etc etc, simply because Security CAN do it.
In my airline someone did dissent - and all of the above happened, including a mandatory assessment by a psychiatrist, before he was allowed back to flying and his security pass was reinstated. No wonder we regard Security as the enemy.
Perhaps one of the Security apologists could enlighten us here as to what we should do if we see Security failing, but don't want to get arrested?

[rsuggitt]

"With the likes of rsuggit advocating blind adherance to the current rules without questioning the logic in use"

Hmmm, not sure I said that. I'm not saying the present system is perfect and I'm not against the idea of developing a better one. What I am saying is, given the current system, I do understand why pilots and CC should be subjected to the same checks and subject to the same rules; I also have an idea of the threats that it they are designed to deter.

I agree that I differ from some people in beleiving that the threats are real and worth deterring.

[emaint2003]

Blind adherence to the rules is certainly making the experience of flying less and less positive. A recent example of travelling through East Midlands, my young lad, 14 to be precise, not only gets forced to take off his belt, then he is given a body full search. His nasty rugby ball is then found in his hand luggage where the insistence is then made it has to be slightly deflated for "safety reasons", then my partner is told that her one piece of liquid make up of 50ml must be put in a plastic bag. A family of 5 travelling! From a profiling point of view no chance of being terrorists. Interestingly coming back from Shannon the security people could not be more polite, "so you like your rugby young man?", and the departure area was full of US military. It is interesting to note that the rugby ball had been through Birmingham and Lisbon security without the need for deflation. Obviously EMA employs aviation safety experts as well as security ones! I am getting fed up of the complete inconsitencies of airports. Take your shoes off, no need to take your shoes off. Rant over.

[emaint2003]

Forgot to add, after security at EMA what do I find, yes you guessed it glass bottles in the duty free, no that's not a weapon is it?

[Oxidant]

Forgot to add, after security at EMA what do I find, yes you guessed it glass bottles in the duty free, no that's not a weapon is it?

Tut tut, now surely anyone can see that a litre glass bottle of Vodka is not a dangerous weapon, yet your nail scissors, with their lethal 3/4 inch blades are!:ugh:

(Or, guess which one makes more profit for BAA?):rolleyes:

[Life's a Beech]

rsuggit

You still haven't answered my point, that the scenarios you suggest having nothing to do with aviation, and the security could equally apply to Tesco. Until you can do so you must be assumed to be wrong.

[rsuggitt]

Just to be clear, are you referring to this ? "It seems to be you lacking the imagination. The only point in attacking aviation is the extra damage due to the aircraft's energy. Blowing up something on the ground in an airport is no more effective than blowing up something somewhere else. Why on earth would a terrorist go through the effort and risk of getting stopped by going airside, to an almost-deserted apron, when he could kill far more people in Tesco?"

While you can use an aircraft as a weapon (eg as in 9/11) I do believe it can also be a target. While the attempts to do so did not work (possibly due to luck), both the shoebomber and whoever tried to take liquids on board were trying to make the aircraft a target. So too did the culprit behind Lockerbie and also the bomber who caused an Indian (I think) 474 come down into the sea. Aircraft have also been the subject of hijacks, and in some instances (in the 1970's I think) hijacked planes were then blown up on the ground in the desert purely in order to get increased press coverage and attention for the organisation concerned. These events by the way did not make use of the extra kinetic energy of the aircraft.

Yes, a terroist can kill lots of people in Tesco - and on the tube and on London buses as in 7/7. And it scares people and stops them using tubes and buses and no doubt it would stop them using Tescos for a while. However, I know of no terroist attempt to damage a Tesco store so far.

Like it or not, many places have been the subject or a successful or otherwise terrorist attack. It does seem to me that aviation in particular is seen as a target that has great kudos, and I can envisage many ways in which a terrorist would want to attack it. So while things have not come to a place where we all routinely check under our cars each morning (and remember, the IRA taught us to do that), nor look under bus seats, I dont think it's unreasonable to take extra security precautions for high profile potential targets.

Once you do put security measures in place, the one thing you must avoid doing is weakening them. One way to make weaknesses is to make exceptions. And as soon as you make a weakness that is visible to a potential terrorist, the said terrorist is likely to try and exploit it.
I fully accept that real flight crew are unlikely to be terrorists, but of course how does anyone at the security check confirm that someone in uniform is really a pilot and not someone impersonating one ? And might it be the case that the person making a fuss about going through security, trying to blag their way through without being subject to the proper checks, trying to have an exception made for them, is really a terrorist trying to blag their way in. Possibly not. But do you want to take the chance ?

[TACHO]

but of course how does anyone at the security check confirm that someone in uniform is really a pilot and not someone impersonating one

Possibly by taking a look at thier valid airside pass?:hmm:

tacho.

[verticalhold]

Be very surprised if a terrorist would make a fuss at security. I seem to remember the IRA were always very discrete about their activities until the big bang. The 9/11 bombers drew no attention to themselves until they were on the aircraft.

[Life's a Beech]

"Once you do put security measures in place, the one thing you must avoid doing is weakening them."

The point is that no-one is suggesting weakening the procedures. We are suggesting that the security procedures are not strong, are wrong.

You are suggesting that people will imitate pilots to get airside, but as I pointed out they can do less damage, realistically, than they could in Tesco, but since they are surounded by security-minded professionals, rather than dazed shoppers, and they are expected to behave in a very specific way, they are far more likely to be caught. What do you think it is like airside? Do you think that there are crowds of random people walking round the aprons and taxiways alone?

[rsuggitt]

"Possibly by taking a look at thier valid airside pass?"

Have passes ever been lost, stolen, or faked ? Do you think it possible that someone could steal or fake a pass ?

[rsuggitt]

"Be very surprised if a terrorist would make a fuss at security."

Me too.

But given the stupidity of the people who tried to bomb the London underground with chapatti flour and peroxide, and the people who tried to drive a car into Glasgow terminal, you never know who'd be stupid enough to try and blag their way into places.

[rsuggitt]

"The point is that no-one is suggesting weakening the procedures. We are suggesting that the security procedures are not strong, are wrong."

So fix them !

I fully appreciate that point of view.

But in case you've not noticed, my comments have been trying to support the idea that flight crew should not be frustrated at or try to stretch the rules of the security that is in place at the moment.

"You are suggesting that people will imitate pilots to get airside"

No, I point out that this is *one way* in which I can envisage a potential attack.

" but as I pointed out they can do less damage, realistically, than they could in Tesco, but since they are surounded by security-minded professionals, rather than dazed shoppers, and they are expected to behave in a very specific way, they are far more likely to be caught. What do you think it is like airside?"

Well I hope you're right. But let me point out yet again, there have been in the past many attacks on airports and aircraft, and none that I know of on Tescos.

"Do you think that there are crowds of random people walking round the aprons and taxiways alone?"

Next time you are airside, take a look at the other people working near you. How many are there and how many do you know personally ?

[verticalhold]

rsuggitt;

What is your aviation experience? Your profile suggests none

Have you ever worked on a busy airport ramp?

Have you seen the procedures to get airside as a ramp employee?

I seem to remember recently a major supermarket chain having to shut most of it's stores due to an implied threat. (just can't remember what the threat was)

A series of suicide bombers in major supermarkets at 5pm on a Friday would cause panic on an unprecedented scale as well as possibly thousands of deaths.

If the government insists on continuing with it's current blind reaction then all airports are going to have to provide seperate crew screening areas. One major carrier is already looking at the problem from the point of view that they are in danger of losing working hours from the shifts of highly expensive personell, with the potential losses that implies.

I was delayed yesterday because an engineer who had to come from base to my aircraft for a very simple check took nearly an hour to get through security. Maybe if the airport concerned had all the security channels open, or a channel for staff the delay could have been avoided.

Airside staff, be they pilot or shop assistant can't change the system, only those in charge can, and frankly I don't think they give a s*** about the problems they have caused. They needed to be seen to do something, so they did. Sadly they did the wrong thing.

VH

[rsuggitt]

"Have you seen the procedures to get airside as a ramp employee?"

No.

I take it they are pretty tight ?

[TACHO]

Do you think it possible that someone could steal or fake a pass ?


Well I think it is very unlikely. There is information stored on the card.... its not the same as a buspass. Stolen...erm no, not unless there is a thief who is the cardholders twin... it does have a photo:).

rsuggitt the more I read of your posts the more it becomes obvious that you certainly haven't experienced the procedures to get airside as an employee. I think unless you have experienced what the majority of PILOTS on this thread are talking about, you will have little understanding of the current situation regarding airport security.:hmm:

Nobody is asking for security to 'stretch the rules' but is asking for consistency across the board. Why do I have to take my shoes off, when the pasenger channel (which is the next queue along) quite clearly do not? (Several of the pax found this highly amusing the other night). it seems a lot of the time the main aim of the game is to belittle aircrew.

tacho

[rsuggitt]

"There is information stored on the card"

Is this checked electronically by the security personnel?

"it does have a photo"

Oh those are so hard to fake.

"rsuggitt the more I read of your ....little understanding of the current situation regarding airport security."

What has that to do with my discussing the principle that flight crew should submit to security checks ?

"Nobody is asking for security to 'stretch the rules' but is asking for consistency across the board."

" it seems a lot of the time the main aim of the game is to belittle aircrew."

Ah-ha, I think we get to what this is really all about. Not the desire to comply with and strengthen security, but suffering a blow to the ego.

[TACHO]

"There is information stored on the card"

Is this checked electronically by the security personnel?

Well yes actually it is, if you had ever used a staff airside pass you would know that.

What has that to do with my discussing the principle that flight crew should submit to security checks

well in order to discuss something effectively it would help if you had experience of what you were talking about. I submit to the security checks on a daily basis. Chip on shoulder on your behalf I think.

Not the desire to comply with and strengthen security, but suffering a blow to the ego

No ego's involved here at all, read above, I do submit myself to security checks on a daily basis. I do appreciate that security is required and is neccessary. As I said previously the lack of consistency is what irks most aircrew, especially when they are subject to additional checks that the PAX are not subject to. how does making me take my shoes off, bollocking me for having a calculator in my jacket pocket, and then making me bare the soles of my feet "strengthen security"? if everyone had to do it then fine.:hmm: oh and taking my sandwiches which my missus lovingly prepared for me the previous evening:}. Thank god that disaster was avoided.

But as you have already stated and by the content of your posts, you really do have little to judge my comments on:rolleyes:.

tacho