View Full Version : Congrats to the Pilots Who Stood Up For Reason

4th Jul 2007, 00:09
I just saw this on the ABC web site - pilots standing up for reason at securitar check points. About time.


I get frustrated when I see rubbish like this

The Department of Transport and Regional Services has issued a brief written response to the matter.

"The Australian Government says to ensure the integrity of the system it is important that all persons travelling on screened air services, including pilots, submit themselves to aviation security screening," it says.

when the evidence is clear that it is power that is their interest not securitar. The integrity of the system is everything - not the intended purpose of the system.

If their interest was securitar, then please tell me why cleaners are not subject to screening and pilots and flight attendants are. I know who I would trust more, as I do each time I fly.

The Chef
4th Jul 2007, 00:39
They just dont get it.

We are sitting in a locked space, with all the aircraft controls right in front of us.... If a pilot did want to do something stupid, it would not involve a nail file, pocket knife or any other sort of weapon.

What is the point of having an ASIC if it doesnt mean anything anyway... :ugh:

The Chef

4th Jul 2007, 00:39
There definitely needs to be some common-sense (albeit a rather scarce resource) with regards security screening for pilots. Unfortunately individual protest of this nature is more likely to have a detrimental effect. The poor bugger has opened himself to the possibility of having his ASIC withdrawn -with obvious consequences. To achieve any level of sanity in this process, pilots will need to work towards it as a cohesive group -individually we can achieve nothing beyond opening ourselves to sanction. There would no doubt still be requirements to be met, but one would hope the ASIC which we pay for will be of some benefit, perhaps entitling us to less or lower levels of scrutiny.

Interesting that the politicians are legislating to allow themselves freedom from these onerous restrictions... personally I can't think of a group of individuals that deserves more stringent screening -any one of them would willingly sell their soul to the highest bidder if there was some advantage in it for them. Have they not considered that they are making themselves a prime target for those of nefarious intent, that their unresticted LAG's could be switched for substances less innocent? Why indeed should politicians be exempt from the requirements they impose upon everyone else?

Islander Jock
4th Jul 2007, 01:18
One can only hope that this is the start of some sanity being brought into play. THe screening regs in relation to aircrew are a joke, clearly thought up by a group with little or no experience in aviation and palmed off to the minister and GG for signing off.

Akmark, not only cleaners but engineers, airline employees and airport employees can board an aircraft without being screened. So long as they themselves are not departing on that aircraft.

Oh and nice one Peter Somerville being quoted as saying that pilots should be subject to the same security screening as passengers. Why? WHat does it achieve? You spineless prat! It's a joke, Somerville knows it's a joke, DOTARS know it's a joke, the pilots always knew it was a joke but the public keep getting fooled. If the likes of Somerville won't stand up when given the opportunity to show this particular part of the regs to be a croc then unfortunately we may be in for a bit of a long haul yet.

Buster Hyman
4th Jul 2007, 01:23
Its a simple matter of trust really. Who do you trust more, cleaners or Pilots?

(I know my answer, but I don't want to prejudice others' responses!):E

Avid Aviator
4th Jul 2007, 01:41
John Borghetti said all employees are subject to the same stringent security screenings as all other travellers.
This is total rubbish; baggage handlers, cleaners, caterers, engineers etc ARE NOT SCREENED before they access the aircraft. Pilots and cabin crew are, often more than once per flight.
That is not the way to achieve optimum safety, and makes you wonder why aircrew are screened so severely while other employees are not screened at all. Public perception? Power trip by DOTARS? A little evil pleasure from some management types at the daily inconveniece this causes crew?

4th Jul 2007, 01:56
I understand the frustration, but I don't suppose it occured to the Capt God, that the "alarm" and his subsequent behaviour might have caused a concern even some fright amongst the surrounding fellow travellers/passengers.

He is, as part of his duties, supposed to impart confidence not fear into his passengers, he is supposed to be setting an example as an aviation professional.

WE are ALL in this together and cannot be too vigilant. It's all a matter of attitude, so get with the programme eh, or get out.

If a pilot did want to do something stupid, I guess he would also have to deal with the other one in the cockpit.

As a passenger and a pilot I could think of any number of ways to defeat the security without bringing anything on board, we all know that, but at least we can remove or eliminate the more obvious ones. Recent TV shows CCTV footage of the hijackers buying a Stanley boxcutter prior to those flights. For example, was it the boxcutter or the people who brought the holocaust? Both, but it was the boxcutter that made it all so easy. In determined hands they are a lethal weapon, do we therefore ban their sale, of course not because a number of industries would probably come to a standstill, but we can assure that they are not available in places they should not be.

Avid Aviator
4th Jul 2007, 02:07
but we can assure that they are not available in places they should not be.
By making pilots take off belts, shoes, hats etc several times a day, surrender coffees and lip balm sticks etc, while airport employess carry a duffle bag unscreened through the airport perimeter by swiping a card???
No one is saying pilots should be treated differently to other employees; we're saying it would be nice to be treated the same!

Ron & Edna Johns
4th Jul 2007, 02:14
For crying out loud, Gaunty, once upon a time pilots were not foreced through the passenger screening points; they went through the side gates/security points..... just like 95% of airside workers CONTINUE to do. The passengers never saw the pilots! So there was never going to be a potential "scene" in front of passengers.

I'll say it again: 95% of airside workers still go through side gates where their ID's are checked but there is no comprehensive screening for metal, other prohibited items or even, wait for it, water!

You're childish "Capt God" expression is way out of place. Pilots are sick and tired of being treated DIFFERENTLY to all other aviation workers. We are sick of being treated with more suspicion by virtue being dragged through the passenger security points. We are minimal risks (a) because our ongoing security checks and (b) we have everything to lose. Meanwhile people with nothing to lose should an aircraft go down are avoiding screening - because "it's all too hard to implement" in Australia.

It should go back to the way it was before - drive crew straight to the aircraft after passing through the airside check point. And that way if a naughty pilot was "trying to hand something off to a pax on another flight", well he couldn't!

And THIS what ASICs should be really about - regular security background checks on people such as airline pilots and airside workers at MAJOR airports. Once you have it then there goes with it a level of trust. As opposed to wasting God knows how much in time/money/resources making every SPL upwards in Australia carry one (or AVID) for when he flies into Horn Island...! And consequently the ASIC/AVID ends up meaning virtually nothing, with no trust associated with it.

"Capt God"...... mate, wake up to what's going on out there.

FFS :ugh:

4th Jul 2007, 03:22
I guess he would also have to deal with the other one in the cockpit.
Does that mean no more toilet breaks?

Also why are AFP allowed through with guns? Surely they are just as untrustworthy as pilots.......

4th Jul 2007, 03:43
Blueloo. Completely agree. Never seen them ID checked either just after they set all those alarms off.
The debate is over anyway. Kerry-Anne and her panel of experts discussed this today and they all agree that pilots should be screened. Problem solved, Kerry - Thanks.

P.S. I don't usually watch her, this segement just caught my eye....really!

Spaghetti Monster
4th Jul 2007, 03:56
Unfortunately every time I hear about someone arguing with airport security, I'm reminded of this: "Never wrestle with a pig. You just get all muddy, and the pig enjoys it."

Although as long as Kerry-Anne's on the case I feel much better.:rolleyes:

4th Jul 2007, 04:11
I think Buster means...do we trust cleaners, pilots or doctors more?

4th Jul 2007, 04:20
I think Kerry Annes hubbie has a full set of encyclopedia britannica for sale, never used, brand new.
Reason for sale:
No longer required as wife knows absolutely :mad: everything !!

Islander Jock
4th Jul 2007, 04:52
If the opinion of Kerry Anne Kennel has any sway whatsoever in this debate, I'd get out of this industry now.

4th Jul 2007, 05:12
only a few days ago...........screener was training a new wannabe hitler and my nav bag goes thru the machine and the young walker texas ranger points out to his mentor that I have knife in my nav bag (in front of pax being screened). Slightly embarrassed I quickly think, did I take my kitchen knife out after whipping up some sushimi on board last flight? (just kidding) No, he says, thats the edge of these guys flying binder that looks like a knife. (in front of pax again) asks me to pull it out shows young wannabe and gives a few onlookers a few ideas on where to stash prospective sharp edge and then tells wannabe that 'we let those go thru'. After 7 min of stuffing around I go on my way but not before being explosive tested and becoming as happy as a bastard on fathers day.

Damn rediculous if you ask me.

4th Jul 2007, 05:24
Ron & Edna Johns

Settle down old chap, read my opening words and my second paragraph.

I know precisely what's going on out there and I dont like it any more than do you, but, as Spaghetti Monster suggests, "Never wrestle with a pig. You just get all muddy, and the pig enjoys it.".

Causing a scene at a public screening point:
Last Tuesday was much like any other day at Darwin Airport, but when a Qantas captain set off security alarms, people around him could not help but notice...... does nothing apart from exacerbating it, to solve the problem.

The public and the screeners look to Capt God and his acolytes and anybody else in unform and/or wearing an ASIC for that matter for mature leadership. They aren't all that happy about it either, so when they see someone who they think should be supportive of the security effort bucking them, well "monkey see monkey do" and "pig wrestling" becomes vogue.

The screeners are just doing as they are told and it is, apart from frightening the horses, childish and petulant to take it out on them.
If you want to be treated differently, and I entirely agree BTW that we should be, than the other airside workers then you should as a group be behaving so.
It is Government policy, take it up with them. I am, through the high level forums available to me. The message we get is that until the Government change the policy they cant. If you're not happy with that, then you like I, have the opportunity to change the Government if you think the alternative will give you what you want. I wouldn't bet on it, but we must keep at it until there is a reasonable solution.

In the meantime, I guess it's a matter of personal attitude, hence my reference to Capt God who if in the circumstances described did cause a scene deserves the apellation.

I am in and out of Domestic and International airport terminals landside to airside and on and off aircraft with TAC card access to most areas, sometimes dozens of times daily. And yes I set the alarm off occasionally if I forget to put my mobile or 2 way through and if I happen to be wearing a pair of "those" shoes. NO biggie, and they are not picking on me personally, an apology a smile and I'm on my way. And yes I have to show my ASIC the same dozens of times to the same security guys too. "They" are just doing their job and it must be hellish boring AND I find them all polite and helpfull when there is a problem.

A smile and a bit of understanding might make their day and your safety go a whole lot easier. It's like checklists as a pilot and cabin safety briefings as a passenger, I've never skipped one ever nor not paid attention to one or the other. Ask your FAs on the next flight how they feel about and handle the bored and rude pax who wont pay attention.

Capt Claret
4th Jul 2007, 05:45
Sorry Gaunty, I've got to disagree with you here. They're not just doing their job.

The standard varies from day to day, from place to place. At Cairns for instance, I never have to remove my RMs. At Alice, almost all the time.

At Darwin, Mr Chubb sensing my increasing frustration at having damn near stripped, and about to remove my watch, walks up to me and says, "sir you can beat this, spread your arms (one forward one aft) and take a big step through the detector". This procedure works well. BUT if you do it at Alice, they'll rudely tell one off, and write a letter of complaint to one's employer.

Also at Alice, one female colleague has had her bra patted sown because the under-wire set off the alarm. This was despite asking not to be touched. Another female colleague has had her underwear rifled in the guise of an ETD, another female threatened with "I should go through your bag but you're crew so I won't". In the last example, the pregnant female was ETD'd immediately after me, I received no such threat!

Late last year I received written approval to carry jeweller's screwdrivers to adjust my headset. After 5 months and about 60 odd screenings with no question, one of these people just doing their job decided I couldn't carry them. This, despite passing though the very same check point only days earlier.

The public don't have to see the pilots and cabin crew being screened. Most pax that have spoken to me about it believe the concept of crew being checked is stupid. I'm in vehement agreement with those above who have noted that the cleaners, baggies, caterers, ramp personnel and caterers aren't screened, so why can't we access the aeroplane in the same manner.

Though no longer based in Darwin, it was usual practice to board the aircraft only to find the catering supervisor seated, reading the paper, unscreened and unsupervised. And, he'd been there for up to half an hour!

If my ASIC doesn't get me to the aircraft without the rigmarole, why have it? And on a doomsday note. When the next economic downturn comes, as it surely will, I believe aviation will be hit harder than it has in the past, because it won't be able to support the exorbitant cost currently foisted on it.

I long for a collective emulation of Ghandi, where all pilots world wide refuse to acquiesce. :ok: I look forward to the next coming of Santa too. :{

Metro man
4th Jul 2007, 05:57
Look at some of the people doing the screening, minimum education low wage earners suddenly given massive authority. A lot of them are more suited to putting wheel clamps on cars. And we entrust our security to them, shouldn't be too hard to get an ASIC as long as you haven't been caught doing anything wrong yet.

Let's have some sense applied re crew screening, remember when one pilot leaves the cockpit the other is in sole charge behind a locked door. Not to mention the crash axe we have easy access to.

Ron & Edna Johns
4th Jul 2007, 06:09
Gaunty, your second para is absolutely correct. And it does not enhance passengers' confidence to see a Captain being undressed in public because he's set off the detector. Seeing a Captain having epaulettes, belt, wings, shoes removed to figure out why he's beeping is un-nerving for the pax. They have TOLD me so. "This bloke is about to fly our plane - what's wrong?"

It is insulting. It is demeaning - the Captain of a plane being de-uniformed in public daily. It is not a "God" thing, it is a courtesy, respect thing. Especially considering the catering staff are driving unscreened trucks up to the plane. What is actually in that cart they just put in the galley? The Captain of an aircraft (and indeed the copilot) has earned that trust via backgorund checking for the ASIC. The message daily is "we don't trust you and we'll show your passengers we don't trust you."

Safety is unmeasurably being affected since many crews are so pi$$ed off as they arrive on the flightdeck. The "security" enhancement to safety does not offset that.

That's why I get jacked off with stupid expressions such as "Captain God" on this site. So give it a rest. Crikey, I don't think I'm a God but I do believe I'm entitled to a little more respect and trust - TRUST - than a passenger or the catering driver for that matter. Anything otherwise is damaging to morale, and by extension, affects safety in the long run.

(PS - went through BNE security the other day with my left arm raised ahead of me - wanted to see if my watch actually was the beeping culprit. A "security" woman screamed at me to go back and walk through "normally". What the....? Suitably humiliated and chastened, and without a word, I humbly obeyed her command. Tell me - does THAT instill confidence in passengers to see that sort of behaviour, and does it help or hinder a Captain's focus on the job ahead?)

Islander Jock
4th Jul 2007, 06:22
Lots of good discussion here but I think we all need to remember that it is not the screeners fault. They are the product of poorly thought out and implemented legislation.
As a pax I have no problem going through screening but as an AD operator I really empathise with the frustration of not only RPT crews but others who should be exempt from this lunacy ie, RFDS, Police aircraft. What the hell is the point of screening the individuals when they have access to all manner of prohibited items when they go on board.
THis has to be fought in a sensible way. Bagging the security at the screeing point is not the way to go and will only get those showing resistance into trouble and work against all of us in the long term. The Govt, DOTARS and travelling public need to wake up and realise that nothing detected on an aircrew at the screening point is going to make them any safer if the pilot is inclined to cause death or injury.
As I said before, it's a shame to boss of AFAP didn't use the opportunity to publicly highlight the idiocy of all this instead of sucking up to DOTARS.

Sorry mate I didn't get to go to the meeting in Subi, can you pm me what the jist of it was?

4th Jul 2007, 07:21
I hope I'm not letting the team down here, but I have only ever been treated with courtesy and respect by screeners at BNE, ADL, CNS, MEL, HBA, DRW and SYD.Hopefully that is all I will ever experience.

4th Jul 2007, 07:30
I hope Borghetti reads this:

The other day I watched in bemusement while sitting in the cockpit of my Qantas jet as an engineer came into the cockpit with various tools of the trade. Screwdrivers. A leatherman. Various other implements, all of which would result in me being pulled aside in security and arrested if I tried to bring them on.

When I did my preflight checks I dutifully checked the various weapons, restraint items, and other equipment located around the cockpit.

Then later in the flight as the other pilot went out to the loo, I sat there thinking of the complete irony of the fact that I had utter and total control over what happened to the plane and its 250 passengers until I unlocked the door and let him back in.

Then the next day there was a furore in security as I was pinged for a small set of tweezers in the bottom of a toiletries bag which had been there for over 5 years of security screenings and had never moved.

Moronic. Completely moronic. I imagine American pilots would think much the same thing as they sat in their cockpit and checked their semi-automatic pistol or Taser. The frustration of pilots is completely understandable. And I wish I could share mppgf's experience with security screeners, but I can't.

4th Jul 2007, 08:06
I wanna make a couple of points.
- the act is the act. whilst it is there it applies to all people. Don't blame the security guards for applying the law they are told to apply.
- having said that, the security is only as good as the people opreating the machinery. Case in point the Leatherman that flew with me in my bag out of Sydney, but got picked up by security screening in Brisbane before the return flight. An expensive oversight that no doubt some brisbane security guard is enjoying.
- Respect needs to be earned. Personally I respect pilots for the years of training and experience, but there is no surer way to diminish your profession and eliminate any respect you have than to carry on in a public place, in uniform.
- Sorry to say it, but the argument you are safe cause you have an ASIC doesn't cut it. You get an ASIC by needing because of your job, and not having a criminal record (read the Act). Same as for Maritime Cards.
- what about the chick at sunglass hut who has a pair of scissors so she can unwrap deliveries, or the tradies refurbishing the book shop?

bottom line IMO - we should trust pilots (and we need to) and they go through a separate entrance without the screening. Until that happens, then like the rest of us you go through the screening, and you take off the RMs.

4th Jul 2007, 08:13
I fail to see why even if the laws stay the way they are, why security personnel can't just let pilots through with a wink and a nod despite what they see on x-ray. If they make a beep through the metal detectors give 'em a quick swipe with the magic wand and pass them on. Consider them 'not random enough' for the swab test and everyone is happy. But I guess they are taking their job as seriously as you guys are.

I've not passed security in full uniform before so never come accross any "Nazi" attitudes toward crew so maybe I'm living in dreamworld.

As an aside, who hires the Chubb? I've been told before (don't remember if it was in relation to Aus airports or not) that airport security (i.e. the security company) were hired by the airlines. Is this correct or does the airport itself hire them? Surely if its the airline then specific 'problem employees' with said "power trips" could be weeded out. I guess any direction in that line would be undermining the spirit of the legislation and bla bla bla.

Any way, my point was a bit of comradery would stop a lot of people here rubbing each other up the wrong way. Dream world again, I know.

4th Jul 2007, 08:26
Just go easy on the engineers.

We need to carry tools of the trade otherwise your aeroplane doesn't get fixed. We also spend all our time trying to keep them in the air rather than falling out of the air. A little bit like the pilots?

We are also subject to bag searches every time we enter the airport!

And yes I agree that it is a bit silly to be searching and restricting what the flight crew carry considering they have control of the aeroplane, at least most of the time.;)

Worrals in the wilds
4th Jul 2007, 09:19
"I fail to see why even if the laws stay the way they are, why security personnel can't just let pilots through with a wink and a nod despite what they see on x-ray. "

That's the way it used to be done, until a couple of twits flew a couple of aircraft into a couple of buildings. These days there is too much scrutiny of the screening points by DOTARS and the media to get away with that sort of common sense. As various posters have pointed out, the current madness is not the fault of the screeners. They work under pressure from their company (who wants to keep the contract), the hirer (be it airport owner or airline, depending on the location) and the government (in the form of DOTARS). DOTARS use their staff in plain clothes to pass through the points with a test item to see if it is detected by the guards. If it is not, there are repercussions for that guard and the company. They have used airline staff in uniform before to test the process, there is no reason why they would not use someone in a pilotís uniform to see how effective the screening is. Hence the lack of discretion.

To add to the frustration, different magnometers have different sensitivities, depending on brand, age and calibration. This is why your RMs will set off some and not others. Again, this is not the fault of the screeners, but the lack of standardization across the countryís airports, which also applies to the local procedures at various screening points and their different levels of tolerance.

In addition, the current labour shortage, low pay rates for security guards and the everlasting joy of being abused by pilots and passengers all day means that the best calibre screening staff rapidly get frustrated and move on.

Sid Departure
4th Jul 2007, 09:45
Very interesting discussion.
Firstly, to the Qantas pilots involved in this nonsense. GOOD ON YA:ok:
Enough is enough it's time to let our feelings known!
As professional a pilot, it's insulting to be treated as a potential threat to avaition security every time I go to work. Yet muslim baggage loaders that have access airside can go to work with out any security screening.
Madness :rolleyes:

max autobrakes
4th Jul 2007, 10:10
Bring on separate screening areas for airside employees ,like a lot of other civilised countrys do.

Bugger I think I may have just called NewZealand civilised,in a backhanded sort of way, bother!:ok:

4th Jul 2007, 10:44
Congrats to the Pilot facing disciplinary action.

Screening tech crew is a croc and I've had enough thanks.

"John Borghetti said all employees are subject to the same stringent security screenings as all other travellers"

For sure...

And this, "In the United Kingdom it is alleged that Islamic extremists have recruited doctors, so the possibility exists that a pilot could also be a security risk."

Oh yeah, doctors could be extremists .........so........a pilot could be......so........they have to be screened because.........du-oh.


Mr. Hat
4th Jul 2007, 11:19
have no problem with it as long as EVERYONE is screened. All treated equally. Sure its a pain in the arse... can't see it going away.

Can't stand pax comments when I use the staff line to expedite....

4th Jul 2007, 12:31
From people who should be setting an example.
No wonder people sometimes get the idea pilots are egotistical etc etc.
I will agree with ALL people should be treated the same.
I cannot believe the stuff that is being used as a defence by some people here. If I recall, the people responsible for 9/11 had trained as pilots, had pilot licences, had reasons to be on airfields etc etc. Next thing you know they will be screening doctors, they don't pose a threat either.
un #$%%# believable

compressor stall
4th Jul 2007, 12:38

Few pilots would be complaining if EVERYONE who has airside access was treated the same. Read the earlier posts above if you can. :ugh:

You might also want to check two of your three recollections about the hijackers of Sept 11. Revisionist history at work here. :rolleyes:

4th Jul 2007, 12:57
No offence aimed at engineers Nepotism. Just showing the inconsistency of what gets allowed into the cockpit by one means but not by another!

Ozbiggles, you do indeed need a history lesson. The 911 hijackers did not gain access to the aeroplanes as pilots. They simply learned to fly enough so that they could hit a building. And note what happened once they had control of the cockpit. We ALREADY have control of the cockpit before we even leave the ground. Even a butt-naked airline pilot could do something very nasty with the aeroplane if he has the inclination! And no metal detector or xray machine in the world could stop him.

Crank - it is not the "Asic" by itself that makes airline pilots a pretty safe bet. It is numerous background checks carried out by authorities above and beyond what the Asic requires. These are done for the Company, not Airservices or anyone else. There are these as well as psych profiles and all sorts of other things which joe public DOES NOT get done and the 911 hijackers DID NOT get done and no hijacker gets done. What is required is a behind-the-scenes check that you, the pilot, really are who you say you are, because once they are locked in that cockpit, you are at their mercy no matter what they've had confiscated at a security checkpoint!

Bottom line: the public screening of pilots is for show, and no matter how many umbrellas the security people confiscate, they still let them take control of the cockpit a few minutes later. Notwithstanding this, I agree pilots should not make a "show", regardless of their frustration. But something does need to be done with tailoring security appropriately.

4th Jul 2007, 13:45
CS and DR
hmmm, did I say they gained access to the cockpit because they were pilots. NO. The point was they had a pilots licence, apparently according to some, Pilots should be above getting checked/stopped.
hmmmm, did I say everybody should be treated the same. YES I did, that is if you can read my post.
Let me see if I can get my point across to you again. Listening ears on.
Everybody should be subjected to the same screening process, if its tougher than it should be GOOD!Would you rather it was soft?

4th Jul 2007, 13:52
Come on, If I was going to bring down my aircraft I'd use a 110g tube of toothpaste, a wristwatch, and an ingenoius device cleverly secreted away in my shoes.

Pushing the control column has never ocured to me :rolleyes:

4th Jul 2007, 13:55
Everybody should be subjected to the same screening process, if its tougher than it should be GOOD

All things being equal - How does making it tougher for a pilot (if a pilot is screened equally as toughly as everyone else) make any difference?

4th Jul 2007, 14:09
Everybody should be subjected to the same screening process, if its tougher than it should be GOOD!Would you rather it was soft?
Soooo, if they stripped me naked, then that would be better than not stripping me naked? (aside from turning away all the passengers)
Talk about a non-sequitur!

That "tougher is better" does not follow, and runs the risk of losing sight of the ultimate aim, thus diverting attention from the clever ways terrorists do things. Like I said, the important thing is not what the pilot takes into the cockpit with him (within reason of course - I guess we'd have to draw the line somewhere before the submachinegun and 6 sticks of TNT), but that he is exactly who he says he is, and that he has been thoroughly checked out - as many times as you like - by intelligence/security services and psych profiling.

4th Jul 2007, 14:23
.. well ... if nothing else .. this thread has highlighted the weeknesses to those who probably should not have such easy access to such info :ugh:

4th Jul 2007, 14:28
ozbiggles wins the award for the dopiest post tonight! :E

In no particular order.....Bob Hawke 'trained as a pilot' too but that doesn't make him one. In the context of this discussion the fact that the Sep 11 hijackers 'trained as pilots' is as relevant as my wife training in child care when it comes to the death of a child at a childcare facility somewhere else in Australia. Precisely zero.

I'm sure that any self respecting terrorist could probably get an ASIC and probably get a uniform of some description so I don't think any of us are getting out of shape with the general philosophy behind screening. I think the point of most thinking pilots has always been about two things.
1. The inconsistency of the policy as it applies to those that have access to the aircraft...as others have pointed out John Borghetti's statement about all staff enduring screening is a gross distortion of the reality.
2. The manner in which the screening is carried out is often inappropriate with little recourse available to the individual crew member.

Wash context: I've walked a mile in their shoes. I was a security screener some years ago- pre Sept 11. I know the job and I know the challenges. It's a crappy, mind numbing, thankless job. Sometimes the crew are great, sometimes they're dills. At the end of the day though screening is just aspect of aviation security and the sooner we acknowledge this publicly and do something serious instead of this b/s PR exercise that we currently call 'aviation security' the better off we'll all be!

4th Jul 2007, 14:33
Jeeez Clarrie and Ron:rolleyes:

We are in vehement agreement about the necessity, or rather lack of it, but until the Government or whoever is responsible for it changes the rules we gotta live with it.

And yes I too get pinged wings, epaulettes and all at one place wearing and carrying the same stuff as another that went through just fine. Including finding a Swiss Army knife that I had forgotten was there in the bottom of my bag amongst the general debris that had never been picked. :rolleyes: Was really pleased about that because it was a special edition given to me on my 30th that I've had for over 30 years.:D

If they are playing a game then it doesn't do anything for our dignity if we get down to the same level. I'm a Platinum member of and subscriber to the Rise Above It Club. If you wanna drive em totally nuts just smile harder the harder they try to make it for you. Besides, being cooperative makes it even harder for them to screw you around if indeed that is what they are doing. As for innapropriate touching and behaviour that's easily fixed, just make sure you have their name and make a written report to your company, they have a duty to take action. Without your express permission any touching or patting down is an assault.

Capt God?? yup, if they haven't got the nouse to get it and find it necessary to carry on so, then if the cap fits em they can wear it. It's their company and their union/association they need to mobilise not thier personal angst. Ghandi mode wont work on the screeners nor will all the standing up to them in the world. You are simply arguing with the wrong people. All they can do is refuse entry and call the AFP if you insist and then you have a really angry mob of pax when they have to call out another crew or cancel the flight.

Anyway I personally have the routine pretty well sorted out in what I wear and what does and does not ring the bell. Watch, mobile, keys and whatever else has rung a bell anywhere goes in the little tray and I get it at the other end. And I've stopped wearing my Harley Davidson belt :E and have found an unbelievably comfortable pair of Italian boots without any steel in them, :ok: it keeps the blood pressure down, which at my age is important :}

Giving in? Hardly, but it keeps life simple at that level, whilst I work hard at trying to get the changes necessary at the right level.

Pronunciation: 'prag-m&-"ti-z&m
Function: noun
1 : a practical approach to problems and affairs <tried to strike a balance between principles and pragmatism>

4th Jul 2007, 16:24

Putting aside, for a moment, the issues of dignity:

If there is general agreement (as there seems to be from previous posts which have addressed the point), then the problem is not so much with the people carrying out the laws, but rather with the laws themselves and they need to be changed. Do I understand that correctly?

If so, then it further occurs to me that there is a role for employing the political process. For example, if one Mr Bruce Baird MHR started getting a bunch of letters from certain of his constituents - all saying largely the same thing - he might be of a mind to ask questions in the appropriate places.

At this point, this is where your various representative organisations also come in. They should have political contacts they can make representations to. They do not exist solely for EBA negotiation purposes. It appears from this thread that here is a topic which they would find general agreement on and a united face would be something our elected leaders would have to acknowledge.

Whilst it's interesting reading, bleating about it on PPRuNe won't actually achieve much. What it will do, is to demonstrate to other interested persons that each of you is not alone in this and that if you got together on it, you might be able to get some changes made.

One pedantic - but possibly important point. I note from the ABC article that the DOTARS person said that "all persons travelling on screened air services... submit to screening". Perhaps the 'travelling' part is what needs to be concentrated on. That is, engo's, baggies, cleaners, etc. are not travelling - and so may come under different regulations.

I know it's a pedantic point, but that may be why they are able to access airside with less apparent scrutiny. If so, then no-one in the decision-tree seems to have twigged that they could bring some device into a sterile area, for later use by a screened person who is 'travelling'. You'd hoped they'd though of that, but one cannot be certain... :ugh: I haven't had time to go through the relevant individual regulations but the devil may be in that detail.

btw Bruce Baird's contact details (http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/member.asp?electorate=Cook)
List of members of the Federal House of Representatives (http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/mi-elctr.asp)

The Chef
4th Jul 2007, 22:15
What I would like to know, is where is the AFAP / AIPA etc on this???
I thought they were supposed to be working for pilots to improve safety, security and our workplace in general, as well as eba's.

These bodies seem to think that all we care about is EBA pay and allowances - it is about time they started focussing their attention on the rest of their responsibilities.

One of the biggest threats to safety and security is being developed at the moment, with the AFAP / AIPA seemingly doing nothing to prevent it.... The Multi-Crew pilots licence..... At the moment, to get into the cockpit of an airliner in oz you have to pay 100k, work for 5 years in some godforsaken place, get through psyc tests, interviews and sim rides, then (usually) pay a further 30k - what self respecting terriorist would bother with this... But soon they will be able to pay their 100k and 12 months later they are in the RH seat of an airliner with crash axe, handcuffs and (the most dangerous of all) a control column right in front of them.

This does not even begin to touch on the safety issues associated with the MPL - or that this will be the single biggest erosion in pay and conditions for pilots in recent history.

There are plenty of other issues that the unions should be working on that they seem to have forgotten - conditions (like security), respect for the job from both other aviation staff (loaders / ground staff) and the public, fatigue managment, pay and conditions of GA - and I could go on.

They seem happy to sit back and let our profession be reduced to that of a "glorified bus driver", whilst they have petty arguments over eba's - which they seem to have little clout on these days anyway.....

Rant over...... for now:ugh:

4th Jul 2007, 22:27
with all due respect to the knee-jerk policy makers:

Empty Barn - Closed Door - Bolted Horse :ugh:

4th Jul 2007, 22:41
:ugh: ozbiggles, look at moy, look at moy, no, look at moy, look at moy.

4th Jul 2007, 22:54
Whilst I'm sure some mental midget in the AG's Department or DotaRS will dispute this, but, as Taildragger67 has pointed out all persons travelling on screened air services... submit to screening with the operative word being 'travelling'. I believe that Crew are operating a flight not merely 'travelling'.
I also smilled broadly at a suggestion from the R&N Forum of
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.
post #21refers

max autobrakes
4th Jul 2007, 23:10
And just how many of those glaring security holes highlighted in the Wheeler report have been acted upon?
Oh dear "affordable security" now is it?:ok:

4th Jul 2007, 23:23
Posted by The Chef:

"There are plenty of other issues that the unions should be working on that they seem to have forgotten - conditions (like security), respect for the job from both other aviation staff (loaders / ground staff) and the public, fatigue managment, pay and conditions of GA - and I could go on.

They seem happy to sit back and let our profession be reduced to that of a "glorified bus driver", whilst they have petty arguments over eba's - which they seem to have little clout on these days anyway....."

Dear Chef,
instead of pontificating about your perceived lack of Union response ,have you actually asked your Union what they are doing about this and other concerns that you raised?
I've got a few mates working thier arses off for the likes of you.They have no time relief ,limited resorces and a totally hostile Union busting management agenda to cope with as well.
Believe it or not ,I actually spoke with the Union and quite a lot of behind the scenes lobbying has and is being done.
So Bill, instead of belly aching on a forum such as this ,why don't you offer up some of that spare time you obviously now have, and do your two cents worth to make the world a safer place? :ok:

Max Talk
4th Jul 2007, 23:25
Question to the DOTARS boffins.
If flight crew must go through a security check because they are "travelling on the aircraft", and caterers don't have to because they are only placing "supplies" on board and NOT travelling, then how come an aircraft cannot depart with a passengers baggage on board and that particular passenger has failed to board ?
:confused: :=

4th Jul 2007, 23:41
Mr Max,
have a look at item XIII recommendations from the Wheeler report

"It is recommended that the Department of Transport and Regional Services prepare regulations so that airports ensure that all those entitled to enter airside secure areas at CTFR airports in connection with work resposibilities should be subject to screening each time they enter, and potentially subject each time they leave, the secure area.

Can't see it happening just yet "Profitability before Safety" and all that.;)

5th Jul 2007, 00:31

Your summary of the 9/11 pilots is grossly misleading. You seem to infer that they looked like employees of an airline, turning up for work with ID cards, uniforms etc.

They may have had 'pilot licences' and may have been pilots. They were traveling as passengers. I never show my licence. Your statement is irrelevant.

They got control of aeroplanes because they attacked the unsuspecting pre-9/11 crew and, unlike most previous terrorists, they were terminally suicidal.

Things have changed. Never again will an airliner be taken over with a stanley knife or a pair of nail scissors. Whether or not knuckledragger in security picks up their switchblade or not, they will NOT get into the flight deck. Period. Thats where the airline pilots are you ^&*[email protected]#wit. :*

It would be better to have a separate entrance altogether for flight crew. Like we used to have.

Islander Jock
5th Jul 2007, 00:50
I know I said before that there were some good points coming out in this discussion but then Oz Biggles jumped in. :ugh: Just confirmed what I regularly say that some people are too stupid to be allowed near an aeroplane.

Blow.n.gasket. Can you give me a link to the Wheeler Report?

5th Jul 2007, 01:03

Gets it in one AND provides a starting point for you. As a last resort votes or the potential lack of are what gets attention here, but calm rational professional advocacy backed up by facts always gets there first. It also helps if you provide them the answers or a method of mitigation as part of the package.

Simply standing on your flight bag and declaring you are not going to up with it put anymore, might make you feel better but will probably look a bit silly to those watching, who cant or dont know how to do anything about it anyway.

Since 9/11 and especially since the London bombings and the recent events that stretched to Brisbane we have lived in a different world. And if the Bali bombings weren't a wake up to Australians they should stay asleep.
I watched the 12 Days the Shook the World series recently with No1 being 9/11. It brought back vividly the horror of that day. Our time zone is +12 hours to NYK so morning events there are prime time TV here. I remember being on PPRuNe when the first post came up just minutes after the first airliner and going straight to the CNN website which like all the news sites were already bogging down to a standstill and hearing my wife call down from the Family room when the first live feed came up and later watching horrified as the second airliner came into view and hit. I remember being bolted to my chair for the next 24 hours watching the events unfold. Ringing/finding my three children scattered around the globe telling them to turn on their TV's and keep their heads down until further notice.

It's called assymetric war and there isn't any effective way to fight it but to try to plug all the holes we can.
It's not necessary to go into details here, but being a fan of the Follett, Ludlum, Clancy and LeCarre genre you only have to be able to read and comprehend at Grade 7 level to find all the techniques you need to defeat security measures. Every time the authorities have had a breakthrough it has been because some person or persons in the broader community has spoken up with a concern or observation. WE are always the first line of defence.

It occurs to me that we might be better served by being in the pax line doing a bit of our own profiling rather than removed from the process for a bit of a heads up on who is getting on our aircraft. I have spent a good deal of my life dealing with the public and it is not difficult to pick up the basic types and the general behaviour you can expect of the. It's not rocket science. Now I dont want to start WWIV but stand in say VB departures and then QF and tell me there isn't a difference in pax make up.

PPRuNe can never be anything but the canary in the mine and/or a rallying point.

It has always amazed me that for an intelligent group of workers, pilots aren't very smart at getting themselves organised or in the subtle use of the political process.

blow.n.gasket observes that his union mates are working their butts off on your behalf. Assisting them is where you should be directing your energy.

I have a little experience in advocacy with more than a little success. And it is always the very few who make the difference without the physical support of their brethren. If you want change this is a good starting point, but it wont happen unless you do something proactive and constructive about it.

Abusing screeners only makes you feel better it is otherwise a total waste of time with the really possibility of entering pratdom.

5th Jul 2007, 01:50
General opinion here is that the individual pilot achieved nothing by objecting to the securitar screening nazi.

I disagree with general opinion I am afraid, as collectively pilots have been walked all over on this issue, yet the actions of one or two individuals have brought the issue in to the media spot light - not the actions of the group or the benign representatives of the group, and this is why I say WELL DONE.

If all pilots, as individuals, objected strongly enough to the situation, then there would be an economic imperative to fix it and it would be fixed fast.

Right now the economic imperative is to not fix it and keep the work force under duress.

Question - if an unscreened pax enters a so called sterile area, don't they empty the area and re-screen it? Should not the same be the case if an engineer carrying tools of trade enters a so-called sterile aircraft containing pax and crew ?

Not being negative toward engineers here at all - just pointing out the simple truth that securitar isn't about securitar any more - it never was. It's about a self perpetuating system that serves no purpose other than to line the pockets of securitar nazis who just love to exercise personal power over ordinary people.

I for one actually don't believe that the level of securitar rubbish that exists currently is required - after all when was the last terrist attack on Australian soil - oh that's right there has never been one.

I am more scared of the people who remove our rights in the name of protecting us than I am of the potential threat of terrizm.

Now with the world economic leaders visiting Sydney, we can all be subject to random strip searches, arrests without cause, mobile phone systems being turned off, business shut down, restricted areas, and telecommunications monitoring without court order.

Yay for the brave new world.

Lastly, to explain,
SECURITAR is a South Park reference
TERRIZM is a George Bush reference

5th Jul 2007, 02:11
As posted by someone else in Rumours and News ->
"I carry around a photo of me carrying the crash-axe from the cockpit, to show the security people."
Like that idea; show it to them, then tell them they're doing such a great job ....

5th Jul 2007, 02:47

I disagree with general opinion I am afraid, as collectively pilots have been walked all over on this issue, yet the actions of one or two individuals have brought the issue in to the media spot light - not the actions of the group or the benign representatives of the group, and this is why I say WELL DONE. a qualified agreement, :ok: problem with that form of protest is we have no way of controlling the media outcome which given the current media shock horror mode is more likely to be negative to the cause than positive.

I am more scared of the people who remove our rights in the name of protecting us than I am of the potential threat of terrizm. In general terms I would agree with you, but Australia is probably the most "enlightened" country with the most cynical people in the world in that regard.

Yay for the brave new world. yup you're standing in it.

Question you gotta ask yourself is how come a small percentage of 2,000,000 out of a 50,000,000 plus population can bring the sysytem to a halt. Probably the same relationship in the US and Australia.

South Park? compulsive and compulsory viewing.:D:}

"respect mah authoritah..sweet" http://respect.ytmnd.com/

The Messiah
5th Jul 2007, 03:42
What's to say the person in the pilot uniform is even a pilot? Different airlines have different ID tags so it can get confusing. They could go to the toilet and change into civvies and carry whatever weapon they had concealed straight on board.

Just take your shoes off, however I think there should be some slippers provided as those carpets are usually filthy.

Capt Claret
5th Jul 2007, 04:02

Well said sir.

I'd add to your comments by saying that I believe that the current regime degrades safety by causing a fuming frustrated pilot to be at the controls, rather than some one who is relaxed and focused on the task at hand.

5th Jul 2007, 04:12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vADXVwLaLmg absolute genius ;) ...... If only it were true:{:{:{

5th Jul 2007, 04:37
UrlocalANz....yeah mate!! that was good...very close to an F.Dagg job....but well done for sure

Can certainly sympathize with Joe Capts actions.....this subject,in other ways ,has been repeatly thrashed do death on this forum and others.....it will only get worse...and so will the consequences to those who decide to make "one man stands"....myself,I recieved a week off,without pay and a letter of warning in file(for 2 years) for a similar stand of action...

Our Union(and maybe an idea for you jokers)has presented the company with a list of complaints,with video footage(taken by pilots) of incidents(over 3 months) that have occured,and they are numerous,of the inconsistances,mayham,harrasment,and many others(you all know what I,m talking about)to be presented to airport officials,in the hope of getting a permanent crew line,that only crew go through....staffed and manned by those familiar with "Crew activities".....

We also have had a gutsfull of their antics,but as rules are rules,we are obliged to co-operate and graduate.....the only real way to change these issues is to have a strong case for change......we are hoping like faaaark it works....PB

5th Jul 2007, 05:31
[B]pakeha-boy[B] , all strength to your arms over there. Lobby wisely as gaunty et al advocate, and back it up with irrefutable evidence. (Whether or not the meek will inherit the earth, it's crazy to kick against the pricks. . . as the devout atheist said, who once excelled in divinity.)

5th Jul 2007, 09:56
And what about the selective security treatment that people can buy ?
Ok, it's not a total exemption from checks, but it is less restrictive if you are prepared to pay for it.

Bah... Most of this 'security' is a farce and intended to keep the sheep terrified.

I'm still p****off that the *#(%@*&#@ Oz pollies have even contemplated exempting the ASEC delegates from the 100ml liquids restrictions. I wonder if the *%&#([email protected] pollies get background checked when they decide to run for political office ?

Hey.. a random though just occured to me.. Do the pollies go through the security checks when they travel on RPT ??????

5th Jul 2007, 10:58
Wow, Ive never been mentioned in despatches so much before!
Oz in Biggles, ask Micheal Somare, the PNG PM.
Dear Keg. Thankyou for my award. I'm hoping the moderaters will issue me a gong underneath my name.
And for the other guy....no,no,no there are two## in $**^%##$!
Ok if I confused Keg, I musn't have made my ponit very clear, Ill take the hit for that. My point was these guys were pilots training for evil purposes, they had been issued a licence to train as the bad guys saw this as a way to attack. Who is to say there aren't more disgruntled pilots out there who know if they complain enough they won't be screened, flying bigger aircraft. If people don't believe this I have one word
Until last week who would have thought a Doctor/s would be involved in a ploy to burn people to death in car bombs and splatter them with nails.
In summary somewhere more than likely there is a pilot with an axe to grind(bad FEDEX pun). ALL pilots should set an example, not belong to the minority who are sooks because they have to take their shoes off.
Now as for all the name calling of the security screening people, just imagine if just ONE of them had seen the packing knifes and asked a few questions. it MAY have been enough to undo the whole 9/11 plot. If that had been prevented by one of them, there would probably not have been wars in the Ghan and IRAQ
That is why we as proffessional Pilots should SET the example. Not go running off the the unions and ministers
PS - I hate taking my shoes off too....so much so I bought a pair that don't go ping, that is the way to deal with it

5th Jul 2007, 11:51

I had a beautifully-crafted, very soothing post prepared, then hit the 'Submit' button and lost the lot :{. SO please forgive this shorter version but I'm buggered if I'm going to retype the previous essay I wrote.


Mate I think you've missed the point. I suggest that most (if not all) aircrew see the need for security screening and, with varying degrees of co-operation, are prepared to put up with it.

What they object to - and this is what I think you missed early on - is a perceived lack of consistency in its application. That is, if other airside workers - who may or may not have direct access to aircraft - get screened away from passengers' gaze, then why are aircrew treated differently (in that aircrew get screened in passengers' view)? Further, there is a view that, at least at some airports, aircrew get screened whilst other airside workers do not (or at least not to the same extent).

We all see the need for security - that is not in issue here. What is in issue, is the effectiveness of the security and how it is carried out.

Further, I don't think anyone is saying that pilots as a particular class should be exempt from screening (as you seemed on page 2, to think other posters were arguing); hence a pilot showing up as a passenger should not be exempt from screening just because they flash an ATPL (or even go through a separate lane). Rather, they are saying that operating crew (or perhaps also positioning crew in uniform) should be screened separately from passengers - as are other airside workers.

It follows in this argument that, where no provision to screen separately exists, then all airside workers should go through the same process as passengers.

5th Jul 2007, 12:08
Then we are in strong agreement with the fact that everyone should be screened. Thats not as much fun!
Let me re read the earlier posts to see if we agree on the fact that there aren't a few posters who didn't like being screened, we may agree to disagree there. I would like to point out I used the word minority to describe how many pilots get the sooks over being checked.
I thought your email was very well executed too, particularly this late at night.
now for some light reading of previous posts!
Is it possible to be banned for polite conversation?

edit - yep, we have to disagree on the last point some for screening, some advocate to no screening/back door/winks and nods. But if KEG can explain the Qantas EBA in simple language but misunderstand my post then I must have made a bad!

5th Jul 2007, 12:26
If every person, item, liquid, gas or solid that finds itself airside is not screened then what is the point of screening operating crew?

There is no point. The situation is farcical, ludicrous and highly irritating.

What pills are you on?

Capt Claret
5th Jul 2007, 12:51
To believe that security screening of tech and cabin crew is really for security, rather than for the perceived propaganda value to DOTARS (Jo/Jill public can be assuaged by telling them, "even the pilots get screened"), is as naive as believing in the tooth fairy.

5th Jul 2007, 17:59
Capt Claret..........would agree,but this latest sagarso with Doctors....certified doctors linked to terror acts(presumed) have not helped the cause ethier....the fact that professionals within the industry are linked to doing exactly what they not suppposed to do....puts you and I(as pilots) in an even greater spotlight.....obviously unwanted for sure,....but guilt by association is sometimes a stigma that is very hard to remove....

You,like I have seen the pathetic side of "percieved security".....but these situations only add more fuel to the fire....really dont have the answer,but as Ive posted before(whether we like it or not) a pro-active agenda can be the only learning course....if we knew what the bloody answer was,this subject would be a moot point...maybe:confused:....PB


6th Jul 2007, 01:03
This is but one of the articles on the US attempt to run parallel security lines for "trusted travellers".
OK we might say ASIC holder = trusted traveller but the costs and accomodation issues remain, this article may put some context on it for you..........................read on.

By Thomas Frank, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON ó In another blow to what has been touted as a revolutionary way to speed up checkpoint security lines, two of the nation's leading aviation associations are warning airports that the effort could backfire and cause longer waits for most passengers.
The Airports Council International said in a letter this week to airport directors that many checkpoint areas don't have room to set up exclusive Registered Traveler lanes. And the Air Transport Association, which represents U.S. airlines, said in a letter this month that the program will drain limited resources "and ultimately may disadvantage passengers."

The letters come at a crucial time for the long-delayed Registered Traveler program, which Congress conceived after 9/11 as a way to speed up security lines for fee-paying, pre-screened "trusted travelers." Passengers would pay roughly $80 to $100 a year for an ID card that would enable them to pass quickly through special checkpoints where they may not have to remove their coat or shoes.

Thirteen airports have applied to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to start Registered Traveler, and a dozen or so others have decided against it. Hundreds are undecided and waiting to see how the program fares in coming months, after it is launched at scattered airports.

Boston's Logan International is among the airports dropping the idea. "We don't see how it meets any customers' needs," spokesman Phil Orlandella said.

Airports that start Registered Traveler would hire companies to market the program, enroll members, produce ID cards and collect membership fees. Those companies say they're reeling from the TSA's recent disclosure that it plans to charge $140 to $300 an hour? tens of thousands of dollars a month? for each Registered Traveler checkpoint lane. The money would pay salaries of screeners at the lanes.

"With some of the airports already saying they're on the fence, this is one thing we don't need," said Luke Thomas, head of Registered Traveler for Saflink, a company seeking to participate in the program.

The charges could increase fees for registered travelers, said Larry Zmuda, head of Registered Traveler for Unisys, which also wants to administer the program.

"When they throw in new things like this that have not been previously discussed, you have to constantly check your business model to make sure it's a viable business," Zmuda said.

The Airports Council International, which represents airport directors, says airports with smaller checkpoints will find Registered Traveler difficult. "If you have three or four lanes at a checkpoint and you have to take one lane out of service to dedicate to Registered Traveler, it can be very problematic," said Dick Marchi, the council's senior policy adviser.

The TSA says it will not allow Registered Traveler programs that make non-participants wait longer.

Steven Brill, CEO of Verified Identity Pass, which also seeks to administer the program, predicted enough passengers will join to keep one security lane filled at all times. He also envisions "dual-use" lanes that ordinary passengers would use when no Registered Traveler members are at a checkpoint.

6th Jul 2007, 01:29
:D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sodXJMJAyZw some thoughts from the man Billy T. ;)

Capt Kremin
6th Jul 2007, 01:41
To suggest that because some muslim doctors decided to become jihadis is now a reason why operating crews MUST be screened does not follow.

We all know many ways (which I won't go into here) how a pilot who wanted to could carry out a terrorist act without the need for any weapons.

Unfortunately, it can't be totally guarded against. Making people strip down because some machine is improperly calibrated isn't going to solve the problem either.

6th Jul 2007, 02:01
UrlocalAZn I like it. Even if I say so myself.

6th Jul 2007, 02:44
taildragger67: in particular to your 1st post... spot on man! That's the essence of what needs to be done. Magic posts.

6th Jul 2007, 02:49
A point that many people seem to miss (and is part of what peeves me off as an airline pilot) is this:

Current airport security screening is designed wholely and soley to prevent people getting through the security checkpoint with the means to gain access to the cockpit, and thus control of the plane, or with other means to bring the plane down.

When I'm operating crew, you can confiscate whatever the hell you like from me - right down to my undies if it pleases you - but don't then allow me to simply swagger into the cockpit anyway! You have, in one foul swoop, just unravelled virtually the entire point of going through the security screening!

When was the last time my ID was thoroughly and closely checked?
Answer: Never!

When was the last time I was refused access to the cockpit because of some contraband item they found at security?
Answer: Never! Though I, like many others, have been pulled up for inadvertent and minor contraband.

When was the last time they checked I was even the pilot who was supposed to be operating the flight?
Answer: In Australia, never! ONLY in the US (and often even then with a precursory glance at the ID).

There is pretty much only one way to ensure that an operating pilot is not going to put in a bootfull of left rudder and full backstick in flight, or thump the other bloke with the (.....insert cockpit weapon-of-choice here.....), or just trick him into getting locked out and then do whatever the hell he likes: Make sure he's done the appropriate clearances, checks, profiling, psych tests, etc, BEFORE he gets up the front.

This means TAILORING the security procedures according to what you're trying to achieve and who you are targeting. Confiscating a freakin' goddamn umbrella from an operating pilot because its point is too sharp is NOT repeat NOT going to save you!! (sorry for the increasingly hysterical nature of this post, but I find it REALLY frustrating that many lay-people and transport officials live in magical fairyland).:ugh::ugh::ugh:

6th Jul 2007, 03:51
i, as an operating flight crew member do not want to be screened,
full stop!
can't put it any more clearly than that

6th Jul 2007, 04:43
Dutch Roll hits the problem squarely.

As far as crew are concerned, ID checking is a far more appropriate procedure. Is this guy who he says he is and does he have a legitimate reason to be here TODAY? Companies are going to have to be involved with supply of names of those who should be there "TODAY" if you are not on TODAY's list, go away.

Those of us who go through the US regularly, are used to electronic fingerprinting, on entry. What is wrong with doing the same on exit. Scan the print, data base throws up the corresponding photo and immigration data, walk through.

No amount of checking and confiscation has or ever will, stop the few cases of deliberate "aircraft destruction by pilot", Egyptair, ATR Algeria (?), Silk Air, to name a few. Ergo it is a waste of time and energy to be knocking off the Capt's underarm deodorant.

What needs to be done is to ensure that ALL those with access to the aircraft have an appropriate level of scrutiny. This can only be done in segregated facilities.
All personnel with unlimited access need to be background checked, in addition to the "Daily Access check".
All those without background checking (including passengers) need to be restricted and subject to rigorous screening. Segregation of facilities is necessary to allow the effective identification of the "Daily Authorisised Personnel List" and to eliminate arguments as to percieved differing levls of scrutiny.

In the meantime, as has been said, it is pointless antagonising the Goon's, get active with people who can make a difference.


Capt Wally
6th Jul 2007, 05:07
....security wise they 'think' they have the place (airports) locked up tight.........what surrounds most major airports in OZ?................soft metalled chainlink wire fences................often partially hidden by bushes & remoteness...............security is only as strong as it's weakest link !

...............sadly we need to be ever vigilant but it's not a level playing field when it comes to airport security. Sure check everyone if that's what it's going to take for us to live/fly free of tyranny, but make sure it's EVERYONE, the same way!

Capt Wally

6th Jul 2007, 07:20
Confiscating a freakin' goddamn umbrella from an operating pilot because its point is too sharp is NOT repeat NOT going to save you!!The recent Govt. review agrees with you.

The Committee accepts that the security outcomes in screening aircraft
crew are limited, given their access to weapons in airside areas and,
indeed, the fact that they are in control of aircraft.http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jpaa/aviation_security2/report/chapter4.pdf section 4.13

But they still support the screening of aircrew. Although I think their reasons are a bit dubious.

The suggestion of tailored screening is an answer to most of the concerns I think have been raised here. However it's much cheaper to have a one size fits all approach and just shove the flight crew through with the passengers.

Working in airport security I know that there are huge holes and inconsistencies in what is done. But I'm not convinced that refusing to take your shoes off is the right way to go about making things better.

6th Jul 2007, 08:09
Wynsook....sorry couldn't resist...So your point is that because there can't be a 100% check of everything, pilots should be above going through a SIMPLE process? Its designed to DETER people.
In the end you, like me, are required to undergo the checks.
And if you must know its a 3 day course of prednisone and phenergan.
Osama is probably thinking to himself, all I need is a pilot sympathetic to my cause to smuggle something through and pass it on to my evil doers inside the terminal.
Now maybe some people here should google FEDEX hijack, look for the wekpedia entry and have a read of what a pilot who has been through all the possible physc testing there is can do. Now in may be a 1 in a millon...but it happened.
Should aircrew be exempt from customs checks as well? There is one slightly large breasted flight attendant (her words) that would have liked that to have been the case in the news today:=

Super 64
6th Jul 2007, 08:10
There's some golden ones in here.



6th Jul 2007, 10:29
Ozbiggles...."pilot sympathetic to my cause to smuggle something through and pass it on to my evil doers inside the terminal."If I knew what your function was in society, I might be able to empathise with you, try to see it from your angle. After this latest gem, I admit I am missing your point, I think you may be missing mine.

I guess you could possibly be in security. Chaps of that ilk tend to think up and install the most remotely plausible scenarios, no matter how unhinged, deranged or obsessively pedantic.

Now in may be a 1 in a millon. but that doesn't stop us spending 50 gazillion bucks .....

hang on a minute. Millon? Millon? that name rings a bell. :8


Reflecting an insidious and slow deterioration of the personality structure, these differ from the basic personality disorders by several criteria, notably, deficits in social competence and frequent (but usually reversible) psychotic episodes.

mmmm I see. Your diagnosis? ......Schizotypal, Borderline Paranoid

6th Jul 2007, 10:33
Ozbiggles, how would Osama use a sympathetic pilot to smuggle something inside a terminal to pass onto his evil-doers if the pilot does security checks elsewhere away from the pax, and if the pilot's ID, background, associates, etc etc is thoroughly known and checked out?

If the background checks are so bad that there are airline pilots out there who are truly sympathetic to Osama, we are already in a whole, whole lot of trouble. Why would the sympathetic pilot not just simply say: "Sami baby, mate, gather all your evil-doers around at 8pm tonight and we'll go over what you need to do to get cockpit access and get another of your missile-airliners happening....."? Or: "Sami baby, this is how you can gain backdoor access and fill your boots with whatever you want to do inside the terminal"? Or: "Sami baby, these are items/fittings you can use as weapons on the plane and you can find them here, here, and here"? Why would the pilot carry it through himself, unless he was a suicide/fanatical sympathiser? In which case, you're really screwed either way.

I realise you are trying to come up with examples as to why the checks should be the same as the passenger ones, but my point stands:
TARGETED checks for pilots (especially ID and background). Confiscating the Captain's wrinkle cream is barking up the wrong tree and losing sight of reality. Which is indeed what is happening, as no-one has ever truly checked who I am or whether I'm meant to be there before getting to the cockpit!

EDIT: Ummm, PAF, why haven't they already tried this with the other workers over the past 6 years who have airside access without been screened properly?

Anyway, we are not talking about explosive widgets here PAF. Explosive tests are another thing, and they are random. We are talking about roll-on deodorant, tweezers, whatever (and if I wanted to get nasty explo on, I would take it on in less than 100ml/g components - no filthy pilot Bid Laden sympathiser required). The "bits" that they don't want you carrying on so that you can't force your way into the cockpit are what I'm talking about. Pilots are already there. They are superfluous!

6th Jul 2007, 10:34
Or - pilot avoids pax terminal altogether.

6th Jul 2007, 12:10
Come on people...its in revelations! Kent Brockman.
wynsock, I don't need medicine to be borderline, just add alcohol!:yuk:
If you are saying Pilots can be screened elsewhere I have no problems with that at all. It will probably cost more however. i havent had to make up any scenarios. There are plenty out there, FEDEX is my prime example there were somemore incidents mentioned on page 4 too. Holes in the security system is always going to be like the James Reason swiss cheese thing. You just need to have enough defences to cover, i fully agree there are holes in the system
Now people who say there is plenty of stuff on board that is true. However someone reaching for that weapon may spark enough warning, I'm sure someone unclipping the fire axe may attract some attention and give you some warning. I think I would prefer to take on someone with a fire bottle than a knife as well. Particularly when I don't see the knife coming.
Heres one of my wilder scenarios. Someone hijacks four a/c at once, on a one way suicide mission to take out downtown NY, crazy, implausible stuff I know. If you are ever have the chance and maybe you have, visit ground zero, read all the names, see the a/c wreakage on display on the aircraft carrier in town and wonder how the world got to this point. Taking my shoes off at a checkpoint seems a small price to pay for trying to prevent anything like that again.

6th Jul 2007, 13:32
Oz Biggles.

Explain to me how someONE can hijack 4 aircraft at once!

The other point you keep harping on is FEDEX. Help me here, because to my recollection the guy who went ape-ship on that was there leagally and used implements on board the aircraft. How was any level of physical screening going to stop him. Or perhaps we should all undergo a full psychological assessment prior to committing aviation.

Give us abreak!


6th Jul 2007, 14:16
Maui, I'm not even going to bother with your interpretation of someone. Yes I will, the someone who organised it ie Osama Bl
I gave you the place to find out the FACTS of the incident I refer too. Take you two minutes to read.
Now take your shoes off Sir and put your bag through the xray machine.:E
PS - Who's the us you refer to, do you mean give you a break or do you have a collective you speak for....watch as well please...

6th Jul 2007, 15:29
ozbiggles, you're not another paranoid American are you?

Would being tougher on the pilot's screening have prevented 9/11?

I think you've missed the point completely. I suspect you may infact, be one of the very security guards pissing us all off.

Islander Jock
7th Jul 2007, 01:28
Pilot gets the wave through security, un-scanned.
Pilot walks up to mate who is pax on other side of security.
Hands Pax widget to blow up aircraft (not same aircraft pilot is on).
Pax get's on plane and uses widget to blow up aircraft.
Security and Federal Police at a loss to work out how widget got through security.
Interesting scenario PAF. Then to use that logic, perhaps the section of ATSRs exempting ADF personnel to be screened should be removed. CAPT Shane Della-Vedova would appear to have blown thetheory out of the water that all members of the ADF display the highest levels of honesty, integrity and loyalty to their country.

Super 64
7th Jul 2007, 02:43
Islander Jock, fair point.

Don't be too alarmed though ADF pers get their fair share of ridiculous security measures. The RAAF won't even let pax board with a leatherman or pocketknife. Never quite grasped that one, hold on to your rifle, but if you had a leatherman or pocket knife you had to hand them to the loadie for the duration of the flight.

I guess they're worried about the backlash when the in flight meals are opened.


Islander Jock
7th Jul 2007, 04:12
Yeah mate I know what you mean. Used to make me cry when I'd open my inlight meal box of sandwiches of processed meat and a mueslie bar whilst the fragrant smell of curries or pasta frozos wafted down from the oven on the flight deck of the C130. :{:{:{

wirgin blew
7th Jul 2007, 04:37
Sorry if it missed it somewhere but surely we should be writing our concerns and addressing them to the appropriate Minister in CBR. If then we are unsatisfied I am sure that there is a journalist out there who is reading these posts who would be happy to publish our concerns.
The perception of public safety is all that is happening at the moment. I wonder in the USA or UK if there is just the same perception or whether they actually have a better system in place. They surely have more to worry about in those two countries seeing as actual terrorist attacks have happened as opposed to our current governments fear of what may happen hear in OZ.
www.markvaile.com.au (http://www.markvaile.com.au) Minister
www.martinferguson.com.au (http://www.martinferguson.com.au) Shadow Minister

7th Jul 2007, 09:49
Super 64 mate don't you realise how hard it is to cut somebodies throat with a rifle.:E that's why they're OK but Leathermen and pocket knives aren't.:rolleyes: tsk tsk tsk.

I guess they're worried about the backlash when the in flight meals are opened. ROTFLMAO

IJ In the good old days he would have been shot. End of story, now I spose he'll get free psychiatric counselling and medically discharged with a disability pension. The worlds gone mad.:{

the fragrant smell of curries or pasta frozos wafted down from the oven on the flight deck of the C130. ve haf vays of getting even mein freund. Sooner or later they will have to RON. :E:ok::} Any way you must have enough FF points to get an upgrade to Business Class surely.:}

7th Jul 2007, 11:11
Cryten, wrong on all counts
Whos the us you speak for? speak for yourself.
I never said the checks should be any tougher than the pax get. The same system makes sense as its already in place for everyone to use. If you want to have a red carpet one out the back for the crew so be it, but it might cost more!
I do struggle to see what all the fuss is about. I don't like having to do it, I don't like the holes in the system but as the add says rulz is rulz and it is just one extra barrier/deterrent to prevent bad things happening on aircraft.

7th Jul 2007, 12:14
Then to use that logic, perhaps the section of ATSRs exempting ADF personnel to be screened should be removed.ADF personnel are only exempt when responding to a threat or incident. If it gets to the stage that Trooper X comes running towards the Metal Detector fully kitted out I'm pretty sure that the security screener will be long gone.

8th Jul 2007, 00:41
Pilot gets the wave through security, un-scanned.

Pilot walks up to mate who is pax on other side of security.

Hands Pax widget to blow up aircraft (not same aircraft pilot is on).

Pax get's on plane and uses widget to blow up aircraft.

Security and Federal Police at a loss to work out how widget got through security.

Here's a nice little variation of your argument PAF:

Sky Marshall gets the wave through security, un-scanned.

Sky Marshall walks up to mate who is pax on other side of security.

Hands pax gun and ammo.

Pax shoots another passenger then crew. Shoots Captain coming out for stretch. Shoots dead surprised FO in seat. Crashes plane. Security and Federal Police at a loss to explain tragedy.

Couldn't possibly happen? Aldrich Ames was a CIA traitor who devastated their Russian spy network in the 80s resulting in the execution of dozens. At some point, you have to accept some risk. There might be a one in a billion chance that the person you've so thoroughly checked out may actually be a bad guy.

Security checks have to be tailored according to the roles of the people you are letting on.

Pax: yep, absolutely nothing which could be used as a weapon, as they don't do background checks.

Sky Marshalls: Separate screening, according to their role.

Pilots: Separate screening. Less attention to whether they have a half empty tube of toothpaste technically exceeding the limit or nail clippers, more attention to who they are and whether they're supposed to be there.

It ain't that hard.;)

8th Jul 2007, 02:58
Pilots: Separate screening. Less attention to whether they have a half empty tube of toothpaste technically exceeding the limit or nail clippers, more attention to who they are and whether they're supposed to be there.

It ain't that hard.;)It may not be hard, but there would be a cost involved. You'd need to convince the decision makers that there was some benefit involved.

Islander Jock
8th Jul 2007, 04:01
You are absolutely right and I should have clarified my point.
It has already been said time and time again. Nothing found on a pilot at a screening point is going to prevent him or her doing harm to an aircraft or passengers.

watch your6
8th Jul 2007, 07:10
The whole screening process for aircrew is theatre...nothing more nothing less.
The "weapons" available to crew members on any airliner are numerous.
Will someone please tell the knuckle draggers?

8th Jul 2007, 19:35
Quote......"But hey what do I know I'm just a student Pilot."

from my experience...student pilots know everything:}

Ace......and one day you wont be a student pilot....you,ll be just like us:{

hell,we would piss and moan if they used an old rope to hang us!!!!!

Seriously..there is a lot being done,by the likes of pilots etc....but the wheels of change come very slowly with Govts involved

9th Jul 2007, 07:21
Maybe some sense after all... Akl international airport now only screens the crew bags but not the crew. Well done AIAI and AVSEC.

10th Jul 2007, 05:01
Interesting to see the police go straight through the screen with their firearms, handcuffs, etc, without getting their ID checked. This would have to happen many times each day at every major airport in Australia.
Dress up as a cop and breeze on through the detector with whatever you want on your person, then hand over your contraband to your waiting mate without attracting attention. Security will be distracted by the pilot they are currently strip searching and won't give you a second thought.

10th Jul 2007, 05:21
And thanks for advertsisng that loud and proud. Should change the name of this thread to "TER101 The Basics":uhoh:


13th Jul 2007, 21:57
God bless his little cotton socks !!!!!!!!

Oh that's super!
14th Jul 2007, 23:42
What worries me is the possible safety consequence of infuriating the crew (especially, anecdotally there seem to be some security screeners who appear to single out pilots to make them a 'public display'). Sure, you could say that they shouldn't get bothered by that sort of things, but the fact remains, you can get bothered. If that reduces the safety margin, and it happens a lot, then I guess it could possibly result in something bad happening.

Have a look at some UK CHIRP Air Transport Feedbacks for some interesting reports on security screening-related issues.

15th Jul 2007, 05:14
Sure, you could say that they shouldn't get bothered by that sort of things, but the fact remains, you can get bothered.I've always thought that if you're going to get infuriated by something that happens at security, even if you have a particularly obnoxious screener, you probably should look for a new career. If you can't handle taking your shoes off/surrendering that tube of toothpaste etc, how are you going to deal with a flight related problem. For example the Rumours and News forum contains a thread about delays at JFK. 90 mins doing a tiki tour of the airport taxiways waiting for your turn to depart is not uncommon. What are you going to do, cut across the grass to get to the front of the queue. I doubt it. Instead you'll apply the same sort of conflict management skills that you should be using at security.

I will point out that all the pilots I as a security screener have dealt with have been nothing but professional. Don't get me started on the professionalism of some of my colleagues though. There's no excuse for being an "obnoxious" screener, coping with difficult situations is part of the job, a chance to put into practice those conflict management and customer service skills you should have.

Angle of Attack
15th Jul 2007, 06:29
For those that think comments here are going to educate wanna be terrorists, lol get over it! Blind Freddy can work out anything plus more that has'nt been said here. This whole issue comes down to the moronic government WE have left in power! Its not just security legislation, if anyone cared to look beyond the commercial news and looked in detail at a lot of legislation thats been passed it would astound you! Terrorism will not be stopped until any worldwide government has the GUTS to address the core issue Israel-Palestaine makes up a fair chunk of that! Until all passengers are chained into a pure metal benchseat setup isolated by a bulkhead from the cockpit or any other acesibble areas and all bags are 100% screened and opened, terrorism is here to stay and will happen, get over it. I mean WTF has changed apart from the paranoia that is coming from government, media, etc? In the last 1000 years? Terrorism has always been here and always will. Nothing much has changed, shock horror 9/11 yeah well thats a fairly small event compared to the overall terrorism acts in the last century. Take a deep breath people the amount of deaths from terrorism acts in the western world has been fairly constant the last 100 years. Might be time to turn off the crap box known as TV because thats what it is. We have far bigger problems.

14th Aug 2007, 12:26
Interesting that an exemption for the screeners exists in the Regs.The whole system is about politicians giving the impression they have the threat under control.Shame every change to proceedures comes post incident.Can't wait for the press survey on how much faith aircrew have in the current system.Should really boost Joe Publics faith in DOTARS and the Govt to keep them safe.

18th Aug 2007, 01:57
i'm all for, and i'm half inclined to do it myself in response to this lunacy, waltzing up to the screening point amidst a couple of hundred peak hour travellers, resplendant in my company-funded regalia, my government-security agency provided access pass dangling from my neck, and then progressively peeling off the layers of my uniform, tie, jacket, bars, shirt, trousers, etc, all the way down to my jocks. these being placed in a little white tray and passed through the machine that goes 'bing', behind my flight bag, should then allow me to walk through the scanner without triggering an alarm.
i'm sure the 'Chasers' would LOVE to film something like this
anyone with me??