security, restore the balance of power

[A and C]

I originally posted this in reply to a thread on the engineers forum but on reflection I think a wider audience find it of benefit .


The reason that security have become so powerful is there has been no control of their paranoid antics, for too long they have been judge and jury in their own court. The politicians don't dare restrain them in case they are seen by the press as being weak on terrorists so security can invent all sorts of new ideas. The numptys at the bottom love these powers and use them as only someone who's life is so empty can, the bosses invent these ideas so that they can make more money by employing more low grade numptys to enforce the ungraded rules.

For the first time in living memory the government has started an inquiry into aviation security, the results of this enquiry will form the basis if future security regulation.

The most important part of this for us is to have a formal complaint procedure that is independent of the airport security system.

To this end it has been proposed that CHIRP is given a formal role as a security watchdog.

I would recommend that you all go to latest edition of CHIRP and follow the links to the government security enquiry website and make your views known.

It is quite clear that the last thing that the security industry wants is an independent body monitoring their antics so your input to this enquiry is vital if you want some sort of control over this issue.

I have made my submission to the enquiry I urge you all to do the same, an hour on the computer will save you years of future trouble !

[gusting_45]

While generally agreeing with some of your sentiments, I resent your offensive remarks regarding the 'numpties'. My daughter is a security officer at a major airport and does her job diligently and seriously whilst being cheerful and efficient, as do many of her colleagues.

Blame the DFT, Airport Operators if you wish, who think up some of the nonsense that has to be implemented. "judge and jury in their own court". Sadly you display your ignorance of the system, the security staff are constantly monitored by everyone from the DFT down and there is a price to pay for their non-compliance.

I like probably everyone has been negatively effected by some daft rules and have met some charmless security staff, likewise I have met many charmless crews who have created much of their own problems with their un-cooperative attitudes.

[LongTimeInCX]

some charmless security staff, likewise I have met many charmless crewsMate, as you choose to use some and many when describing the opponents, there is little doubt which side you are on. I too would use the same words, but in the opposite sense.

What the 'numpties' (love that word!) need to remember is they are merely a service provider, as are we, but too a different group of people.
However, many of them are power mad, jealous and choose to be that way as they seem to think it makes them look as important as they clearly seem to feel.

[Shiny side down]

I have to echo the sentiments of my colleagues- security has become a disgrace.

I, like many, felt bemusement at the 'increased' measures brought in at a certain major airport, which resulted in quite a number of numpties being employed to fill posts, but with little oversight, except by other numpties.

I have watched incredible levels of abuse meted out to unsuspecting foreign visitors. (obviously, constantly monitored by everyone from the DFT down (and there is a price to pay for their non-compliance!))

I have similarly seen and experienced wholesale protected persecution of local crews, by the same numpties, who, for whatever reason are venting their resentment on flightcrew and cabin crew. (why behave in such a manner, when legislation dictates that someone must fill the post, and therefore, receive a salary they might otherwise not have received)

There is no doubt that there are a lot of good people in airport security, their existence predating the current hysteria. And the worst of the perpetrators are not in the majority- but the damage they do is disproportionate.

I firmly believe the current situation is becoming a risk to, rather than an aid to, security. And this view is ALSO shared by a number of security personnel who can only ensure compliance.
Situations like this will certainly bring out the worst in some- whether it is security staff, or crew, or other airport staff.
It's become an industry able to generate and feed off, it's own paranoia.

No doubt, the better educated of the crazies (the real enemy we are meant to be on our guard against) are sitting back and revelling in the mayhem that has been created.

[Basil]

To give credit where due, we departed LHR T3 Gate 42 (IIRC) as pax on the evening of 27th October and security was courteous and efficient.
SIN transit went very well too and the SYD arrival procedures were probably the fastest I've ever experienced :ok:

[A and C]

While there are undoubtedly people who do the security job in a reasonable way they are in a minority. Since the last security upgrade I have been sexualy assulted, had property stolen, been harassed by excessive searching, had others in my crew having property damaged and been delayed by use of local rules about ID passes (Stansted won't recognize a Gatwick pass, that was when both airports were BAA)

It is clear that some of the operatives enjoy and abuse the power that they have over people who have far more responsabiltity in their work.

Any complaint results in the immediate threat to remove your airport pass and so the ability to earn a living.

The chances of getting any satisfaction in a dispute with the security system in next to zero as the management will close ranks and back the operative who you have the dispute with.

Under these circumstances most airport workers see "security" as a far greater threat to their day to day lives and ability to earn a living than terrorists.

[gusting_45]

A and C, if as you say all the listed abuses occurred then I hope that you called the police. I would be very curious to know what the outcome was although these matters are of a very personal nature and would not be surprised if you choose to keep it to yourself.

As I have previously said, I agree with much of what you say. Your personal remarks are a generalisation and with all generalisations there will be some truth embedded. My objection is to the personal nature of your comments.

BAA airports not accepting each others passes is not limited to STN. I have had the exact same problem in reverse in LGW. It doesn't make sense to me either, but local rules apply and there is s*d all we can do about it.

I am sure we could all list many occasions when security have hacked us off, but to lump all security staff together as numpties engenders an unhelpful atmosphere of us and them which is unlikely to be helpful in easing our way through security or improving security in our lives.

That's it, Ive no more to say. Enjoy the debate.

[Piltdown Man]

Like many others, I too have little regard for the numpties who man the security checkpoints nor the pointless, ridiculous rules they enforce. The DfT's "Better regulation for aviation security consultation document" suggests that there may be an improvement and I will take the time to make my submission (Thank you A and C & Fargoo).

The object of aviation security should be to make aviation safer by removing those who threaten it and the items they use to achieve their goals. As it stands at the moment, this is not the case. The system is little more than an expensive theatrical farce. Furthermore, I don't believe the legislators who write the law, the dumb executives create the policies nor the idiots who enforce it have a proper grasp of the real threats. Daily I see the holes in the system yet those who make our lives a misery at airports, the numpties at the checkpoints, couldn't be bothered. So I treat the system and those who enforce it with contempt it deserves. I won't be rude, I'll just comply. But don't expect anything else from me.

I hope the result of this consultation means that SeMS is implemented. But improvements will only occur if the feedback from the system is externally scrutinised. Those in the system have demonstrated they they can not be trusted and are unable to accept any criticism. To date, these goons have excluded outsiders "for security reasons" so we've ended up with the expensive, useless, and "unfit for purpose" procedures that we have to currently endure.

[Radar]

Had the pleasure of of travelling through Stansted yesterday afternoon, and I must say I was impressed by the efficiency and thoroughness of the security procedures being enforced. A very pleasant young lady (of east European extraction) set off the metal detector ahead of me. A queue formed as the lady in question was given the once over. Well actually, it was more like a six or seven over. Each part of the lady's bra was subject to a painstaking electronic and tactile examination. Satisfied that said bra contained nothing more threatening than a bosom, her 18 month old son was then given the once over. Thankfully only the once.

The young lady in question could then continue her journey, trying to dress herself and re-pack her bags while single-handedly trying to console her distraught, uber-terrorist, baby. Oh the joys of flying.

But at least I,and those around me, could relax in the knowledge that our security had been so obviously enhanced.

[Herod]

I stopped operating as crew several years ago, so cannot comment on the present regime. However, having passed through Stansted and Heathrow several times this year as a passenger, I have to say that there has been a quantum leap in the security experience. Staff are helpful, courteous, even friendly while at the same time being efficient. The other side of the pond however: my wife went through the back-scanning machine, was subjected to a pat-down, and then an even more thorough body search. At the same time I was told to "stand back", and there is nothing you can do about it. (The name of the airport has been witheld to avoid further trouble)

[jackharr]

An abiding memory I have from more than 20 years ago was the security chap at LBA who had the most appalling body odour. I was based at LBA then so had to endure the pat-down several times each week. I am just approaching the start of my 14th year of retirement and I really do miss security:rolleyes:

[in my last airline]

Stansted are excellent. No issues at all over nearly two decades there. Only crews with 'attitude' seem to have issues. You know, the ones who crack the same old one-liners that the security staff have never heard before! Relax, and be respectful, and you'll have a good day. There are jobs-worths in every industry, you can't change them so do yourselves a favour and just smile and move on. You'll live longer!

Ps. By the way, do you think terrorists wouldn't use a kid to blowup a plane? Dream on, they would in a heart beat. Security is only a deterrent.

[windytoo]

Have terrorists ever used a pilot to blow up an Airliner? No of course not, one's hands are much more dangerous than a bomb. This is why aircrew find the present security rules so intrusive and basically designed and carried out by primary school children.

[Flightmech]

The security staff who screen passengers are encouraged to be courteous. In my opinion it's the security staff airside screening airport workers who are the numpties. Unbelieveable attitudes.

[A and C]

The security system needs balance and the only way to get this is to have some independent oversight, with out this it will be the same old posts on here for the next twenty years.

This enquiry is a golden chance to do something positive about the security system, It took me about 40 min to do the submission, a small price to pay to get some balance in to this situation. With any luck it will make future work at airports a little more pleasant and if you do have a dispute with security you will have a proper system of redress.

In my opinion just having this system in place will curtail the exccess of security industry.

I make no apology for saying this one more time...........do a submission NOW!!

[Lonewolf_50]

My submission, sir, is not to write to a complaint system that is as deaf as a post.

My submission is to cease travelling by air, unless I have absolutely no choice (employer requires it, or a death in the family).

The security twits have indeed contributed to the utter disgrace that is the airline industry as we know it today: the authors of policy, the implementers at various airports, and the airline companies themselves, as well as the "numpties" all over.

I know how good air travel used to be. It isn't any more, hasn't been for about ten years.

The "security as theater" (well said, sir, to Piltdown Man) has penetrated into the cabin as well. I don't care for the attitude and demeanor of most CC I have run into in the past six years.

The one who now and again breaks ranks and behaves in a semi human fashion, as on my last employer enforced trip, made my day and made me sad all at once.

The cabin crew used to all be that warm and professional at the same time, once in a galaxy far, far away ...

[Prober]

I am grateful for this being brought to our attention. However, the closing date for submissions was 7th Nov (on my computer anyway). I did not have time to study the document but I copy here one of the examples of security behaviour which have affected me. Others I submitted were too security sensitive to be displayed here, but this one certainly sums up my view.
I remember the day so well, many years ago now when, going out to the aircraft through Queens Bldg, we found someone sitting at a table and a notice "Security" on it. It was the old boy who used to stagger out early each morning and raise the flag on the airport building. I asked him what he had to do for his new job and his reply stuck in my mind: "Same as before, Guv, f all".
Ah, if only!


Considerations:

Dear Sirs,

I have been alerted to this opportunity to make ones views known about the security situation late on 6th November. Therefore I have had no chance of working my way through all the documentation. However, after 40 years in aviation, 25 in …/.., I do have an opinion.

My view is that a huge amount of time and expense could be saved through targeting likely 'difficulties'. I quote examples of my experiences.

1. I was going through LHR on holiday with my family. We have 9 children. On this occasion they were aged between about 3 and 16 and they all had their holiday kit packed neatly in mini rucksacks. The security man asked me to open my briefcase. The first thing he picked out and examined was my company identity card (LHR). He asked if I was still flying and I confirmed. He then asked if we were going on holiday and I confirmed. He then, with a supercilious smile, told us to empty all the children's rucksacks and all our hand luggage for a lengthy search. Being ex military I was able to bite the bullet and decide to do it and complain later. This took nearly 20 minutes. What a fatuous and stupid waste of time and resources. If he worked for my company his future would have lasted about 5 minutes.

[ECAM_Actions]

What use is "security" when the Home Office is actively working against it by failing to check the passports etc.. of people entering the country?

They had to admit today in Parliament that "we have no idea how many illegals or undesirables entered", all whilst repeating "border security is the most serious matter affecting security of the United Kingdom". In that case, may I politely suggest you Foxtrot Oscar, I mean, RESIGN??

The whole damn thing is a joke. I'd laugh if it wasn't so serious.

[mostlylurking]

It is a joke...

TSA- Man goes through airport X-RAY Machine - YouTube

Notice that only one official was intelligent enough to see the humor.

[Load Toad]

If we are still present & at war in Afghanistan at least in part to improve security in 'the west' why do we need enhanced security anyway and if we need enhanced security anyway why are we still at war in Afghanistan? One or the other please - to save money & lives if nothing else.

[Kuchan]

I travel as a pax often and go thru staff security frequently.

I got more abused at the staff check points, less at the pax security points.

As a pax I went thru without even taking my belt off and my electrical gadgets still in the bag.

At staff security, I would have to take out every gadgets including ear phone to satisfy them.

Most crews are thoroughly stripped of their baggage ( as they are the easy victims) to fulfill the airport security statistic quotas. Haven't you notice that they tick each time for each baggage search.

[CONF iture]

Jesse Ventura tells reporters he has no more patriotism left after “cowards” tossed out his case against the TSA.

o16GOAstA7o&feature=player_embedded

[greatwhitehunter]

As an engineer subjected to the staff security search each day I have to agree that the behaviour of the security staff is unacceptable. In the vast majority of my passages through security I witness unprofessional or rude behaviour. Good security staff are definitely in the minority. Some of my colleagues go through in pairs so one can stand witness for the other if required. That people resort to this is a clear indication of how poor security staff are and of the bad relations their behaviour has caused.
Most staff just bite their tongue and bear it. One who objected to being denied access through a door he had every right to use had his pass removed when he protested. There was absolutely no question of the security man being taken to task for being wrong.
When you do meet a team at the security point that are cheerful and professional you really noitice it.

[AN2 Driver]

I think we need to make a difference between those who are employed to execute what ever the regulators deem necessary and the regulators themselfs.

My personal experience at my home airport, where I pass security several time per day, has been quite positive with regards of the people employed and their attitude towards us. I feel treated like one professional who is dealing with another. After a while you will get to know them and it was not a few weeks ago where we all were present for the retirement of one of their nicer people. So I do not think that universally security people are mindless drones who simply love to exercise their powers.

Having said that, I do recall experiences elsewhere which have been nothing short of harassment and fully would correspond to some of the things you guys have been experiencing. Like any other form of customer service disasters, they need to be addressed and dealt with.

The other and in my view significant part of the issue however are not the workerbees at the airports, but the regulators who have brought the current situation upon us.

It is not the airport staff I hold grudges against, because they are there to do a job. However, I resent, dissent and generally disagree with the fact that the regulators worldwide have

- without any credible reason declared the men and women whom they do trust with flying airplanes for a living, thereby forming the backbone of todays air transport business, as a whole and without exception as terrorist suspects.
- have given terrorist organisations the very victory they wished to achieve by their stupid and senseless acts, namely to have a profound and enduring effect on hindering us, their victims, to live our lifes and earn our livelyhood in a normal environment.
- have repeatedly and keep on harassing, accusing and generally suspecting every single air traveller in this industry of the intent to comit serious crimes.

Let's face it. One single individual or a very low number of individuals who come up with a supposed terrorist plot will therefore have power over millions of travellers, flight and ground crew, even if their "plots" are absolutely half baked and not in any way workable, such as the "liquid" rules which followed a plot which has been proven to be highly theoretical and unlikely to succeed.

That, I feel, is totally unacceptable.

Unfortunately, people once again have proven to be able to adapt to these "safety" rules with the energy of sheep. What would have been needed, at the time, is a world wide stand off against this. Passengers, Crews and Ground Staff alike. If you don't trust us, we won't fly. If you treat us like criminals, we will not fly. If we have to hand in our honor and dignity in order to be admitted to the high security facility which our airplanes have become, we will not fly.

I am not talking nor asking to abolish security checks altogether. But we need to come back to some sort of sanity in this, particularly where crew are involved. Anyone who will screen pilots to their underpants and thereafter lets them actually fly something much more effective than a genuine weapon needs to have his head examined. Make up your mind. If air crew are this much suspect, they can't operate airplanes. We need to ground the industry and let Al Quaeda and friends claim the unconditional victory over the population of this world.

Or we take a step back in this time of mass hysterics and come to the agreement that air crew are amonst the people which hold one of the highest sense of honor, comitment and dedication to their jobs and to aviation as such and therefore stop their shizophrenic suspicion of all of us.

We should not even think that regulators will relent to this without massive pressure. And it is more than questionable if there will be enough people to be willing to but their careers on the line for this. But like Ben Franklin said it, anyone who is willing to give up essential liberties and their dignity for a little supposed temporary security deserves neither.

[in my last airline]

Windytoo:- predictive text Einstein by the way
Bank managers have robbed their own banks whilst their kids were held at home, at gunpoint!

Nuffsaid

[windytoo]

I have looked in a dictionary and cannot find the word "nuffsaid", so I am not sure what you mean. However please do not confuse me with a bank manager. If you don't know the difference between a pilot and someone who works in a bank, I think you are on the wrong website forum.

[grounded27]

Speaking from my society and government in the USA we are lost! Homeland security, first off nazi Germany had the "Fatherland", Communist Russia had the "Motherland". Great slogans for populus control.

Now on to the point, as we are becoming more of a police state we draw further from our constitutional ideals and the power the police have needs to be contested on a more frequent basis. The judicial system decides what is wright and wrong, the police enforce this. Police have too much latitude to cast judgement that is not their rite W/O consequence. Innocent until proven guilty my arse.

We are hemoraging money and resources to feed ritch and greedy assholes in the private security and arms sector, those fine folks and the persons they pay off in the government (lobbyists) are distroying this nation. Have no doubt, unless in a mudhut and self reliant it affects you, all over the world, you can not hide from this.

Aghh, a rant, am I allowed latitude in thought?

[grounded27]

Most crews are thoroughly stripped of their baggage ( as they are the easy victims) to fulfill the airport security statistic quotas. Haven't you notice that they tick each time for each baggage search. In the USA flight crew can carry a firearm with a "US Marshall" ID, if you can pass a generic FBI background check (all airport personell need one) you can basically get this liscence. There may be more details to it that I do not understand.

[RoyHudd]

UK airport security are about the most unpleasant bunch, bar the TSA of course. One wonders just how these inadequate folk are trained, and what thoughts are put into their heads. Sadly, most are patently unable to exercise discretion, and are unable to participate in wise profiling. I imagine they are at the low end of the food chain in terms of job capabilities.

Blame their trainers and their management; the security people are of low intelligence and need suitable guidance. Their default mode is nastiness to anyone who may appear superior in appearance or attitude, namely well-spoken pilots or passengers. (The dubious-looking ones who may comprise the real danger are always waved through.)

Best say nothing, and show "respect" in one's demeanour. They lap it up.

[con-pilot]

In the USA flight crew can carry a firearm with a "US Marshall" ID, if you can pass a generic FBI background check (all airport personell need one) you can basically get this liscence. There may be more details to it that I do not understand.

While it is quite obvious English is not your first language (and my hat's off to you for doing as good as you have) you are incorrect on many levels.

[grounded27]

In sprite you degrade my comment , lack of a fine grasp of the english language. Please elaborate on all levels of how incorrect i am in my previous statement. Damb I hate comments W/O actual content, say your word MAN!

[Flightmech]

Just awaiting the arrival of The Hitcher on this thread.:eek:

[itsresidualmate]

When I drive through security with my van full of oils, fuel, hammers, knives, screwdrivers and countless other sharp metal things, it always cheers me up to have my lunchtime soup and blunt spoon confiscated.
If a terrorist gets an airside pass you can be sure they won't need to bother smuggling a weapon through terminal security.

[itsresidualmate]

...and having to put my Leatherman through the x-ray machine in case I'm trying to hide a knife inside my knife! Ah, that fair brings the chortles out!

Definitely more common sense needed with airside pass holders.

[scr1]

They even scan the large bottles of water for the water cooler!!!:ugh::ugh:

[paulc]

As an SLF - I was surprised not to be asked any of the usual security questions at check in on a recent flight. Also a bottle of sun screen was left in bottom of carry on and not noticed.

[mad_jock]

Thats changed now and there are regulations about having posters up everywhere. So they don't have to ask the questions but some old hands on checkin still run through them.

As for the not spotting, its perfectly normal for stuff not to be seen. You get pax coming up and handing over all sorts of stuff which you are suprised they got through. The two that spring to mind was a set of hydrometers which were glass things with serious amounts of mercury in them (they didn't travel and there was mucho issues about) in an antique box. I think they went by royal mail in the end which I had serious issues with when I found out because it would have written off the airframe if they had broken and it completely took the mick out of DAG regs.

And a couple of sets of shefs pro kitchen knife rolls which hannibal lecture would have been proud of. The chefs in question said they always took them in hand luggage and handed them to the crew when they got to the aircraft. And they certainly didn't come across as if they were telling fibs.

Its one of the reasons why crew gets so irrate when we get reamed because we know what does get through and whats airside anyway.

[woodja51]

Guys go look at this video and tell me if Boeing have fixed it or not... no... is the answer ... same thing in the 787... 747... 767... one of these babies will end up in your backyards again ... and Boeing know about it but don't seem too fussed...less eaters to pay for I guess?


http://web.me.com/mwuillemin/B777_VIdeo/B777_VIDEO.html

user - b777
password - b777hatches

And before anyone says this is irresponsible to post - I have alerted the FAA, OPERATORS , BOEING DOTARS ( AUSTRALIA) ...

NO ONE CARES ....

Maybe it will take another incident to get attention as they continue to take our nail clippers and hand cream off us ... and search 9 children travelling on holiday!!

[Piltdown Man]

Bank managers have robbed their own banks whilst their kids were held at home, at gunpoint!

So in my last airline, what's your point? If you are suggesting that aircrews are vulnerable to external pressure you are quite wrong. If you were capable of such an act, you'd apply use it against a security goon and not to someone who will be in the air. Coercion such as this has to have a offer the promise that you'll see your loved ones again in return for your compliance. Everybody now knows what happens when the bad guys get in the aircraft. An additional reason for picking on security personnel is that the reliability of their rosters means that not only could you easily follow them home your planning would be made a lot easier.

And then consider this. The average security guard at an airport is not doing their job to protect their country or fellow man. They are doing it for exactly the same reason that I work - to put a meal on the table. Yet unlike most other people, few choose this job out of choice, it's out of necessity. There aren't many other jobs they could do. Which therefore means that security guards are even more vulnerable to external criminal pressures. And what additional checks are made on security personnel? I'll wager bugger all with no additional profiling or spot checks on their family life either. And if any checks are done, the security personnel remain vulnerable because the bad guys don't know these are done.

No, the greatest threat to the security of aviation is the security system itself.

[Flightmech]

woodja51,

The hatches on our new 777's are covered with the galley flooring and not accessible from the main deck. The hatches are physically there underneath. Actually it's a pain in the butt having to go in from downstairs every time you need to do something in the aft MEC.

[in my last airline]

PM
My point is along similar lines to you but, I do believe that crews could be held to ransom to some degree or another and that a certain amount of security deterrent acknowledges that. I think the DFT has to consider ALL types of air transport operations. It is incapable of streamlining a taylor made approach to each situation. So we all get the full treatment. We are all treated as suspects by the security staff and that is quite right in my opinion.

Windytoo;
Nuffsaid = enough said
I apologise if you were insulted at being promoted to bank manager from pilot. See, it is the attitude of, 'don't you know I'm a pilot', that pisses of everybody else that deals with us and in turn gets us a few extra rub downs!

[FLCH]

I recently went through the Known Crewmember Program on a trial basis here in the States.

All I can say is: what a breath of fresh air !!

[Poltergeist]

it is a shame that Piltdown Man comments when he is incorrect. Damming system as a whole by attacking the front line staff for the system is disingenuous to say the least. I am not in front line aviation security but I am working to improve it for everyone internationally . I have studied risk management in aviation security and the assertion that crew could not be made proxy attackers is quite wrong and has no empirical support neither does the conclusion that security staff are a bigger risk. There are many cases of proxy attacks in europe, no one is exempt unless you have found some evidence to the contrary. The biggest risk is misinformation.

The problem clearly here is one of how the security is conducted at the front end and industry is making advances having recognised the importance of human factors as air operations did themselves after analysing accidents. There are some staff who are as described in their approach and they are being dealt with on the whole. I have to say, I have also witnessed crew who have been rude and uncooperative from the outset - there are bad apples in both worlds folks!

So how do we go forward? the consultation about SeMS is not going to affect screening in reality. It is about industry playing a greater part and government playing a lesser part, it is about the management of security, the metrics involved and how they are acted on. This will mean that aviation entities will be given an outcome but will have a big say in how they achieve it. The requirement to screen all pax and staff is unlikely to change. The argument for relaxing measures for crew is, in my opinion, likely to fail. Where will the line be drawn? do we then screen engineers, baggage handlers, caterers? after all, they all have trusted positions that involve the safe operation of aircraft.

Retraining of staff is, I believe the answer. Backed with new technologies security will be less arduous for all but standards will be high. You may be interested to know that in the UK at least, airport operators are spending a lot of money to improve things and get their house in order. The EU also is putting a big effort into this.

As for the 'numpty' title would those who use it refer to pilots using the same name? after all the number of people killed by crew error far outweighs the headline figure for security staff. Such posts do not help those of us trying to put things right.

[inbalance]

I have taken away a Knife set (wooden Block with about 10 Kitchen Knifes by the securitys in Berlin one Day.
They put it in a red plastic cover, transportet it to the aircraft, where it was handed over to the captain, which was me.

:ugh:

[MathFox]

Poltergeist; having worked with computer security professionals I would like to see one question answered honestly by the aviation security profession:
Can you guarantee 100% protection against terrorist attacks?
I guess the answer is no. Because the only way to achieve 100% protection would be to keep all planes on the ground.

And it is fine with me to hear a honest no, because I know that drunk drivers are a bigger threat to my health than terrorists. The correct question is:
What is an affordable level of safety we can achieve?
And then take effective means to achieve that safety level. Magnetometers have prevented smuggling aboard dozens of firearms (and prevented lots of hijackings.) Explosive sniffers are standing unused on US airports.
And I think that treating crews and travelers with some respect at the checkpoint is one of the ways to make the safety check more effective. If the "safety professionals" see the general population as aide in their fight against terror (instead of "bulk to protect" or even worse: the enemy) they would create security systems that are both more effective and more efficient.

Inbalance: that's unfair, you already have the crash axe!

[Poltergeist]

Mathfox, I have always maintained that you can not achieve 100% security and keep an operation going no more than you can make air travel 100% safe.
It is about managing a risk and if you look at what I am saying we are in agreement. I believe it wrong to put the entire blame on the front end. Security until recently was purely reactive and the tragedy of 9/11 caused a knee jerk at the time and that was probably right. What has been wrong is that it appears to me that regulators have not stepped back, whether through fear or doubt. what is clear that risk management seems to have played little part and this is where we are working hard.
As for the magnetometers, this is 'old tech' and we are seeing more portal scanners being introduced. I can not speak for the TSA and its use of equipment but threats do vary nation to nation and what they ar looking for may not be what we are looking for if that makes sense.
a range of technologies and an approachable front end will actually keep people onside according to our research.

Inbalance - One of the problems we are facing. That should not have happened, prohibited items should travel in the hold. an example of interpretation of badly drafted directives!!!

[Shiny side down]

As for the 'numpty' title would those who use it refer to pilots using the same name?

It's an appropriate term, used to describe anyone that fits the bill- security, flightdeck, cabincrew. Security staff appear to have the majority, though, and it serves only to make the good ones stand out. The majority of staff might on the whole be at least good at their job, and often much better. Recruiting the lesser quality fools, though, simply drags the whole process down.


examples of stuff that is just plain stupid.

Liquids in sealable bags.
1)Staff search. If you forget to put it in an easily accessible location for the screener to access it, most accept this, but there's a number (and they are repeatedly the same people) that will subject you to a tirade of abuse or patronising comments.

2) The process would carry more weight if it weren't treated as a commercial exercise by certain airports, where they are sold to people whose current sealable bag doesn't meet the exacting requirements of the person screening the fluids.

Treatment of customers
Verbal and physical manner approaching aggressive handling, by folk who do not have the patience, skill or training to deal with international customers. The old stereotypical activity of shouting louder to make a non-english speaker understand might be funny on Fawlty Towers, but simply adds stress to an already undignified process.
Sometimes, this treatment may be a foreigners first impression of the UK (or the US) and only serves to reinforce any negative preconceptions.

Treatment of property
Staff search. Having personal property handled with little or no consideration whatsoever. Damage has happened, and it is often not possible to identify at what point in the 'process'

Having personal property searched without any effort to ask first, discuss what was to happen, without waiting for it to be done in controlled manner. Object, and find yourself in the situation of having to defend yourself.

Staff search. Inappropriate touching. I watched a colleague go from disgruntled by heavy handed attitude, to point of resigning by telephone. Simply by having to repeatedly being subjected to such treatment. (fortunately, in this case, that particular security person hasn't been seen in a while)

Staff search.
A US airline's crew, UK airport. cursory glance at crew passes, Courteous handling.
Local crew. Each and every member of one aircraft crew, flightdeck and cabincrew, being subjected to an extended search of every item, with instructions being barked out.

TSA staff/priority route at a new york facility
A huge guy, obviously in awe of similarly proportioned gangsta/rappers, with mannerisms copied straight from some B-movie style prison drama.

Many airports facilities have adapted poorly to increasing measures. However, much more effort is made to make them into shopping malls than into pleasant and secure places to travel from or to.


Legislation is seemingly made by people with limited understanding of the nature of the problem, or how it can be implemented.
The result of that legislation is increased security staffing requirements.
A problem is that those staffing requirements are filled by too broad a cross section of people, who are further disadvantaged by inconsistent standards, exacerbated by often inadequate facilities.
As flight crew, the ramifications of a confrontation with these people can be quite damaging.

[MathFox]

Poltergeist; it is good to hear there are sane people working on airport security too .I've traveled quite a lot in a previous job and observed the "security scan" at several airports; I've seen agents at the checkpoint doing a courteous and thorough job. I've also observed some of the issues "shiny side down" mentions... but have seen other things that trouble me more:
* kitchen knives in bars/restaurants in the "sterile zone". (UK and US)
* TSA agent "lost" the owner of a backpack that was selected for secondary inspection.
* talking about keeping guns out of the sterile area: what about airport (military) police?

I agree that facilities for the security scan do not suffice at many airports; it often is hard to find enough space for them, they must be at the entry to the gate area and can not be sprinkled around the concourse as shops can. Proper equipment in a proper working environment can IMO only make the scan better; both in experience for the customer and in quality of the scan.

[Poltergeist]

Shiny, everything you cite is down to the delivery not the legislation. That is being worked on.
My point about 'numpty' is that a large number of people are citing attitude. Attitude is a two way thing and from my part, whatever started it, name calling is counter productive in achieving the goal we all want.

Liquid requirements will go when the govt stops deferring the EU directive btw. Airports that charge for bags in my view should be 'outed' most still provide them free.Again, this is not a legislation but a customer service issue.

As for the broad base of staff, remember that there was a rush to fill positions in the aftermath of 9/11 but recruitment standards are now a targeted area. It is not perfect today nor will it be tomorrow but the point is there is much being done.

What the review is proposing in the UK is that the legislation will state a requirement and the airport will work out how best to implement it. As I said, it is unlikely to change screening as we know it for a long time but I suspect airports will be more attentive to 'customer' needs as it can no longer hide behind the regulator causing the problem.

I do not want to hijack (probably the wrong term :sad:) your thread as it is clearly something you have strong feelings. I just want to give hope that things are being done and at the same time redress some of the incorrect statements made.

[con-pilot]

In sprite you degrade my comment , lack of a fine grasp of the english language. Please elaborate on all levels of how incorrect i am in my previous statement. Damb I hate comments W/O actual content, say your word MAN!

I am sorry that I caused you to misunderstand my comment. I was not degrading you, I was giving you a complement for doing good, much better than I if it was reversed.

As for not commenting further, I cannot for security reasons, but rest assured receiving permission for a pilot to carry a weapon is not just applying for a license.

Again I apologize for any misunderstanding.

[r75]

That video clip is perhaps out of date,the carrier I work for amended that security issue a long time ago,you cannot just lift the carpet and access the MEC like that on their Widebodies and without wishing to speak out of turn,considering this website is accessed by many people outside the aviation industry.....and yes I have read your closing comment.

[SouBE]

Being a relative newcomer in aviation (just 5 years) I still remain surprised that after somewhat rigorous CTC checks etc etc we are still subject to the same security searches (in some cases MORE so) than the SLF. As already pointed out, crew have endless opportunities to get up to no good without the need to have their half full bottle of water removed, or the yogurt they bought for breakfast to be confiscated. I find the inconsistencies of the security staff at a certain ex-BAA airport south of London amazing; what passes as acceptable one day gives ground to thorough bag searches the next. Some clearly accept they are performing a function and do it diligently and courteously...if only it was all like that!

In a 'typical' working day, I can cope with angry or upset passengers, delays, medical emergencies, constant time constraints and pressures, company dictates etc but the one thing that sure as hell puts a dampener on my day is walking through the doors marked 'SECURITY'.

That said, I do love my job and hope I do it to the best of my ability. I just look forward to the day that this is one less burden to endure.

[MidlandDeltic]

Security until recently was purely reactive and the tragedy of 9/11 caused a knee jerk at the time and that was probably right. What has been wrong is that it appears to me that regulators have not stepped back, whether through fear or doubt. what is clear that risk management seems to have played little part and this is where we are working hard.

SLF here. You may be working hard Poltergeist, but the industry / regulators / legislators are now in a position where they can't roll back. Why? Public opinion, and ambulance chasing lawyers. Look at the (partially related) furore in the UK at the moment over alleged reductions in immigration checks over the summer. If any roll back is sanctioned, it would be political and career suicide for the decision maker the next time there is an in-flight incident. Note the is, with no if.

I suggest it will not get better, although improving technology may allow faster and less intrusive scanning, although personally I am not happy with full body scans, and if I was using them daily I would be even less so.

[Poltergeist]

Hi MD, Some of the front end will not change but it goes wider than that. I did not mention in the thread the research we have done into passenger attitudes.
Passengers are more positive about security generally than crew and staff and there are a large number of factors that cause this.

The step back needs to come in the prescriptive nature of the regulator. As said, i do not expect to see screening going but by passing more of the decision process to the industry, we should see improvements as you have said. That is the step back that is needed. The outcomes of safe and secure flight will remain the same but the delivery will change and hopefully for the better.

[JW411]

I have to say that I am glad that I have retired.

However, my reaction to the bloody-minded numpty used to be to be reasonably polite and just to get on with whatever fantastic idea he had about me smuggling something on board my own aeroplane that he had in mind that morning.

In all fairness, there really weren't many complete numptys. Most of the guys were either friendly or pretty civil.

My reward for putting up with their idiocies was the knowledge that I was soon to punch out of the top of the clouds into the sun and revel in that moment that reminded me why I had taken up aviation in the first place.

My enjoyment was enhanced enormously with the thought that said numpty was still down there surrounded by complete negativity for the next eight or twelve hours and with no future save to make a living at close to minimum wage, probably for the rest of his/her life.

However, there was one event that finally persuaded me that it was time to retire.

I was operating out of one of our London airports one night. I had a deadheading captain and first officer with me (in uniform) positioning on the jump seats.

I went through the whole business with my flight bag, suitcase etc and was reassembling my belongings after the usual pointless search when I saw my fellow (deadheading) captain about to go through the metal detector arch.

For a joke I said "Bloody Hell Geoff, have you told them about your pacemaker?"

Well, the sh*t hit the fan in spades.

"Stop!!!!" "

"You can't go through there!!!! You'll have to have a complete body search instead".

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

Anyway, I was well senior to Geoff so I decided to keep quiet and buy him a beer later.

When it was all over, I asked the numpties just how many captains they knew who had pacemakers and, if the knew any, would they be happy to get on an aeroplane with a pilot so equipped with their wives and families and go on their summer holiday.

The subtelty was still lost on them (2 males and 1 female).

To this day, I simply cannot believe that such people have so little intellect or that they cannot see any fun in life.

How sad.

[Craggenmore]

In my opinion it's the security staff airside screening airport workers who are the numpties. Unbelieveable attitudes.

When I worked in the UK, this was most def. the case. I used to hate the security process as aircrew.

Now, having moved away from the UK, I have been 'patted down' once in the past year and have never queued.

A lovely and respectful way to start work and another unspoken about benefit I enjoy each day.

[Herod]

As a side issue, can anyone explain why liquids have to go in a resealable plastic bag, bearing in mind that once through security I can do what I like with it?

[Piltdown Man]

can anyone explain why liquids have to go in a resealable plastic bag

I believe that it's to enable a 'vapour check' to be performed. A sealed bag will prevent/reduce the dispersion of chemicals that are being looked for. So providing certain liquids are actually as dangerous as they are purported to be, it may makes sense.

PM

[stuckgear]

I believe that it's to enable a 'vapour check' to be performed. A sealed bag will prevent/reduce the dispersion of chemicals that are being looked for. So providing certain liquids are actually as dangerous as they are purported to be, it may makes sense.



if that's the case then i see not a hole, but gaping chasm in that security process !

[Tinstaafl]

That's stupid. They make no demand for the containers *inside* the resealable bags to be....well, resealable. So one could load an approved bag with a sealed container**. As for the idiotic limited quantities rule: Do they not have the wit to comprehend ne'er-do-wells sending more than one person through? Each may only be allowed through with small amounts but send 10 or 20 or 30 people through and it doesn't take long to accumulate significant quantities. Mind you, why bother? Just get into one of the servicing vehicles that must come from outside. Those things are not searched in any meaningful way.


**All on the assumption that it's really possible to mix a viable concoction from whatever you carry through with you within the equipment & time restraints.

[Piltdown Man]

Exactly... the possible permutations are endless. Only people who believe they'll pass the security checks will submit to the process, which to date has been everybody - including the bad guys. If you are part of a group planning what the IRA used to call a "spectacular" you'll do all you can to minimise the possibility of something going wrong on the day. So the first thing you do is look for the loopholes, backdoors and blindspots... and those responsible for foreseeing possible breaches have a piss-poor record.

PM

[pipistrelle]

Having endured the DFT approved approach to security for several years I have noted that for most of the time I have had little or no problem with the majority of the staff I have encountered at the airport that was my base, in fact I felt that I was treated very well 99% of the time, however on the other 1% when I met one of the DFT approved talking ar***ol** I felt that the attitude displayed by aforesaid talking sphincters was enough to make me have to sit down , take a deep breath and try to regain a sense of professionalism to allow me to continue with my day.
I really take exception to some of the complete plonkers who have been sniping at each other on this post instead of attacking the root cause of the problem and would like to see a concerted effort through local M.P's, BALPA etc to try to review the whole situation. I guess I am living in cloud cuckoo land if I expect anyone to institute any form of industrial action to show their displeasure at the prevailing situation but that's democracy for you!! - remember that next time you feel that your civil liberties have been infringed.

[grounded27]

My reward for putting up with their idiocies was the knowledge that I was soon to punch out of the top of the clouds into the sun and revel in that moment that reminded me why I had taken up aviation in the first place.



Simple pleasure, from ashort lived MX/REP or Flight MECH. There is no finer reward as you spoke other than a sunrise shortly before top of decent after a 9 hour flight, there is no better fresh start, vista to put life in perspective. Thank you.

[woodja51]

Hi Mech,

Yes - several operators have this hatch covered with lino... but have you ever tried to get a small wall paper cutter ( round circular cutter - like a pizza wheel ) thru security ? Not a problem as plastic handle and wheel the size of large coin.

Unless the covering is cut proof or resistant then these can easily be brought on board ( they are no prohibited item as not a sharp blade under the size defn.

a few seconds alone in the galley and presto , once again into the system under the floor, the p210 power circuits, back plane powers sources and AIMS etc etc ... just saying that a bit of research shows all this up as still pretty vulnerable... WJA

[Dan Winterland]

My take on the situation, having been subjected to Airport security now for the ten years since 9/11 is that Al Queda must be wetting thier pants laughing. They have cost us billions and have the governements terrorisong their own citizens for them Must be one of the most successful franchises ever!

[Load Toad]

'The terrorists will not win; they will not change our way of life - freedom will triumph...'

Like My Arse.

[Dan Winterland]

LT - My point exactly!

Fancy a pint or two sometime?

[Load Toad]

Yes Dan that'd be a great idea. In the spirit of freedom drinks at no point be limited to 100ml.

[before landing check list]

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee178/jrryri/TSA.jpg

[A and C]

The reason that I started this thread was to try to spur members of this forum to get involved in the DfT enquiry into the future provision of airport security.

From an airport staff viewpoint the biggest problem is that there is no form of oversight into the way that the security system deals with them, most feel that any problem they highlight with security will result in an instant and aggresive threat to remove the airport pass resulting in them being unable to work.

The security industry managers have had a policy of avoiding any sort of oversight system as form their point of view being judge and jury in their own is the ideal situation. This leaves the staf member with no rights whatsoever unlike if you have a problem with the police were there is a well regulated system for complaints.

One of the key issues in the DfT enquiry was putting in place a formal system with independent oversight if a staff member has a problem with the security system.

IMO the system of oversight would in its self reduce the number of inccidents simply because the small number of security staff who are responsable for most of the problems would know that there was a system in place to curb their behaviour. It would also stop the management putting in place those petty local rules that flight crew unwittinly fall fowl of when away from base.

However with four pages of mosty very critical posts about airport security I have to ask who has taken the time to take part in the enquiry ? The DfT by asking the question about independent oversight clearly sees that there is a problem but without a number of people making submissions the security industry will be able to sweep the idea under the carpet, after all at the moment they have a situation that is ideal for them, why would they want the staff to have a regulated route to curb their activitys?

Unfortunatly we have reached the end date for submissions to the enqury so if you failed to make a submission then you are likely to have to put up with twenty years of the security system treating you as they want to, rather in the way you would wish because it will take twenty years or so for the next chance to change the system.

[NutLoose]

Blast just seen this thread to late, people like this have no business in the job, they seem to forget their place is to secure an area, not tell a engineer, something they no nothing about what tools they need to do a job......
Bloke is an utter arse and should have no place in the job, this is the sort of thing we have to put up with!

Mr Chips i have no qualifications whatsoever in engineering which is why if confronted with a engineer trying to sneak a toolbox airside we insist on a letter of authorisation clearly stating just why he needs so many tools , people do not im sure realise what a danger tools can be airside, in the wrong hands they can pose a very serious security threat indeed which is why we are very alert to the dangers of engineers trying to blag there way airside with all manner of dangerous items.
However dont get me wrong, if the engineer is being sensible and has only one or two basic tools in his possesion, a torch and a pair of pliers for example that is not a problem, ...common sense has to prevail


I think people are getting a little carried away here, there is no problem whatsover getting any tools airside as long as the security professionals involved are satisfied the engineers concerned have boni fide reason for taking their tools airside, Provided one can prove without reasonable doubt that those tools are really required and not just "a nice to have item" and do not pose a threat to life and limb or the aircraft involved then all is well on our side




Just doing my duty FM, as long as engineers insist on trying to flout regulations and attempt to smuggle tools, boxes of teabags, take aways, flasks of soup etc airside we will have to remain highly vigilant, I even had one chap recently trying to get a large carrot cake airside ,....claimed it was his birthday!!... just how stupid do you think security officers are??



http://www.pprune.org/engineers-technicians/432315-new-badge-wear-4.html



Let's face it, with an Airport having a boundary covering miles and miles, any self respecting terrorist wouldn't be seen dead queing at a security gate these days.

[ExSp33db1rd]

Apologies for repeating myself, seems appropriate tho' .........

Some emergency ( maybe to arrest a real terrorist ? ) Airside at Hong Kong Kai Tak, a SWAT team hurrying through the crew security inspection area in the days when the only metal detector was a handheld Magic Wand. The Numpty waved said wand around every man in turn, it screaming like a Banshee at all the bullets, grenades, knives, bayonets, AK-47's hanging around every soldier.

When the whole pantomime had finished and the armed men had gone, a colleague asked the Numpty ... "exactly WHAT were you looking for ? "

[silverstrata]

While generally agreeing with some of your sentiments, I resent your offensive remarks regarding the 'numpties'. My daughter is a security officer at a major airport and does her job diligently and seriously whilst being cheerful and efficient, as do many of her colleagues.



Because they are numpties.

Security at XXX would not let our German crew through, because they did not have XXX passes, even though our 'German' aircraft was sitting on the tarmac outside. Now that is Numpty with a capital 'N'. Do they think we carry an airside pass for every single airport in Europe?

The Numpties also complained about us having toothpaste, and said we should put our bags through normal check-in. Do they have any clue, these Numpties? (Pilots in third destination - bags at first destination !!.)

The Numpties at XXX refused airside passes for pilots, saying we did not need to go airside. Upon asking how one gets airside, they said that only cleaners and baggage handlers could get airside passes. So the only people you can trust airside, are cleaners and humpers.

We had XXX Nupties stealing all our food and drink - including Danish pastries (custard whirls). Do these Numpties care that hungry pilots with low blood-sugar, are not working at their best?

But these same Numpties, allow Sikhs to carry a 4 inch knife airside, because it is a religious symbol. Are these Numpties racist too?


Grrrr



.

[silverstrata]

I believe that it's to enable a 'vapour check' to be performed. A sealed bag will prevent/reduce the dispersion of chemicals that are being looked for. So providing certain liquids are actually as dangerous as they are purported to be, it may makes sense.



And when have you ever seen such a vapour check being done? Eh? Never.

This is all about profiteering. I had my own resealable plasic bag, but was told it was too large (A4). So I had to pay €1 to by a smaller one (A5).

THAT, is brain-dead profiteering by Numpties. And if you question a Numpty about why they are being numptyish, they threaten to end your career by taking your pass.

Its about time the boot was on the other foot, and some Numpties get terminated.




.

[Gretchenfrage]

I do not doubt the initial good intention. But it has become a self serving scam for some num......s.
The tragedy is that the authorities do not dare take any remedial action as it would seem they'd back off on security (not good for reelection i guess). So they let the num.....s continue their silly nintendo watch.

In the beginning they just screened our bags. Suddenly one overzealous unit wanted the laptops screened separately. As i asked why, they looked me in the eyes, with their numb-wannabe-professional look, and said it is because of the hard discs. Apparently somewhere some explosives were once upon a time stored in something like a hard disc.

So far so good. Then came the iPads and MacbookAirs, with only flash memory. But the num.....s continued to wanting to have them screened separately. This time with the argument " ..... it's the procedure ....".

today I am taking out my MacbookAir, to have it screened separately, and leave the remote hard disc in the bag uncontested ......

I start doubting the "intelligent design theory" ...... :ugh:

[BusyB]

Watch the video on "Binary Explosives" on Google. Then try and remember how many biros have been checked!!:ugh:

[JW411]

Here is another piece of complete nonsense;

We operate into one of the London airports and we are scheduled to operate outbound with "an interesting load".

As such, we have a very highly qualified loadmaster who deals with "interesting loads".

We have a bit of a wait before the "interesting load" arrives so we go to the crewroom for a coffee.

Load arrives, so we gird our loins and try to go through "crew security outbound". I have absolutely no problems, neither does my first officer.

However, Numpty decides that Loadmaster is not aircrew and will therefore have to go through the passenger terminal (some distance away) for passenger screening.

Nothing would persuade him otherwise.

So, the "interesting load" with huge security protection (men with guns) had to wait while my loadmaster was transported to the passenger terminal so that the Numptys there could establish that he was wearing nothing more than his shreddies underneath his flying suit whilst on the other side of the airfield, nothing could move until he got back from his totally useless venture.

That is my big problem with this monster that has been created "To Keep Us All Safe".

It is all a load of b*llox.

As an ex-RAF pilot of 18 years service and who has been vetted to the highest standard in the UK (and the USA), I find it grips my sh*t to have to deal with idiots who would not even achieve the slightest level of PVR clearance if they were exposed to it before they got their job.

[reverserunlocked]

Some years back I was paying a visit to a fellow ppruner who is an a/c engineer at his base in an er, northern English airport in a city where people nick stuff and have curly hair, so the stereotype goes.

While waiting for him to come and meet me at the security hut to take me airside I had the joy of observing the security staff as they whiled the night away. There seemed a strange dynamic in the place as the head honcho, a woman, was frankly a borderline psychotic. If anyone spoke to her she'd just go off her rocker at them. There was a bloke who just hid behind his copy of the Daily Mirror and a clearly junior young girl who ended up in tears after the crazy big cheese woman screamed at her. I recall heading outside to wait for my pal as it was too uncomfortable to watch.

Sadly after returning the head bitch decided she didn't like the look of me and refused to allow my pal who'd by now turned up to sign me in and take me airside. The next day came the liquids on board bomb plot and that was the end of that. So thanks a bunch, mental scouse woman!

[thermostat]

I would like to comment on this issue.
First, all aircrew must have security "airside" passes to enter "security" areas on the airport. In order to obtain these passes, you are fingerprinted (all 10 fingers), and your photos are taken (full face and profile). Then they do checks not only of the applicant but also on the spouse, parents and in-laws. Police checks are done as well. Only after all these checks are acceptable is the pass issued to the aircrew member. After all that, flight crew are still put through the wringer at airports. Why bother to do all that checking if the crew members are to be put through a thorough check at the airport before each flight? Lets do away with the security passes since they don't mean anything anyway. On the other hand, if these passes do mean that the holder has been checked and cleared and is not a threat to security, then get rid of the airport checks. They can't have their cake and eat it.
Secondly, in every cockpit is a hatchet with a 5 inch blade and a pick also about 5 inches long which is part of the emergency equipment for evacuation, yet they worry about a small pocket knife carried be a crew member. How stupid.

Some say that there is nothing that can be done to stop the stupidity. I say there is. If we could get ALL the pilots to boycott each airport for 3 days in protest of this nonsense, the loss of revenue to the people running these airports would be staggering. They would soon fix the problem. The real task is getting all the pilots to agree to this.
In addition, where would all the people who make a living at airports be if it wasn't for the men and women who risk their lives every day to fly 'planes in and out of these places. It's time to put the horse before the cart. Boycott, boycott, boycott.

[Lonewolf_50]

For silverstrata and JW411:

Appreciate your seasoning this thread with some sanity to counter Poltergeist's marshmellows and hot air.

Methinks the paranormal protesteth overly much ...

[Poltergeist]

loan wolf, shame you do not read what I said. yes change has to happen everyone sees that and even the regulators are seeing that as has been pointed out, But throwing buckets of crap over what has happened and the state we are in will achieve nothing but deeper divisions.
While lots will complain here, as has been said by others in this thread, few have made views known officially and as with most organisations, regulators will not acknowledge unless it is complained about in the right way hence it has taken so long.
The individuals have been created by the system and some of us are working to change the system. If that is what you are after we are aiming the same way, if it is still hot air then i suggest you make up your mind what you do actually want.
And Silverstrata, I agree about the stupidity of some rules but my point is as above. I flew back on a German aircraft two days ago and the order was given for the seat backs to be put upright for landing except the guy in front said he would not. The crew overlooked this as he was a premium card holder, yes, I overheard the conversation. in view of this being a safety requirement I guess the crew could qualify for the title of numpty. On your logic does that mean all crew are numpties?

[NVpilot]

Some will disagree, but since some of the 9/11 terrorists were pilots with ID, no amount of scrutiny will ever get rid of the checks for operating crews, jump-seating was one of the first things to disappear after 9/11.

[Lonewolf_50]

Color me unconvinced. I'll believe it when I see it, Poltergeist.

Until I see it, it remains hot air and marshmellows.

Been down the silk lined roadway (on a variety of issues over the years) once too many times to believe otherwise.

As they say in Missouri: show me.

Your example of the German aircraft is a quaint demonstration of how utterly pointless this "system" has become. All this talk of "safety" and "security" is illusion and noise. Has been since day first.
I flew back on a German aircraft two days ago and the order was given for the seat backs to be put upright for landing except the guy in front said he would not. The crew overlooked this as he was a premium card holder, yes, I overheard the conversation. in view of this being a safety requirement I guess the crew could qualify for the title of numpty.


I suggest you go back to an old George Carlin comedy routine that predates 9-11 by a few years. It was on his CD/album "You Are All Diseased." It features the idiotic "three questions" we used to be asked while checking in to a flight about who packed our bags. (Achmed and Ali, of course, why do you ask?) I seem to recall that bit of "security" theater being an artifact of the Lockerbie explosion/wreck/terrorist attack. Please correct me if I am wrong on that score.

His position is that it's all a show. I've seen no reason to believe that has changed.

PS. Your spelling is off. Is English not your native tongue?

[Dan Winterland]

I watched in amazement as a whole planeload of soldiers returning to the UK from Canada were security checked. Every one of them had to put his rifle through the x-ray machine. What were security looking for?

Weapons!

(This was pre 9/11. Probably wouldn't happen now!).

[Poltergeist]

lone wolf, the questions now, where still asked, are part of the evidence chain establishing the ownership. The lawyers will have to say how valid that one is. for me they have little value like the visa waiver question 'have you ever been involved in espionage? ' I guess if you say yes you can enter as you have to be one of the worlds worst spies!!:)

[stuckgear]

Some will disagree, but since some of the 9/11 terrorists were pilots with ID


NVPilot,

That's slightly spurious. To my knowledge, none had been issued with Airline ID's. They had local ID's and driving licences which were used for identity to travel as passengers. None had bypassed security using Airline issued ID's and all travelled as 'SLF'.

[koi]

I do agree with much said to date.
The balence of power may never now be restored.
Much has to do with the type of people employed in any security force and in any country, the people it attracts and the qualifications and skills /training that they do not possess, often venting their envy and frustration onto the crew and travelling public.
How easily do you allow an ungloved hand to check your body and belongings, transferring all the previous folks forensic traces onto yours. Have a look at the British Police and the very public trauma over their attitudes and behaviours. This all goes far and wide as we are constantly reminded. We are all potential or actual wrongdoers in their eyes. From top politicians who disgrace themselves down to the common thief.
I will always remember the first person onto the flight deck of my Boeing, having abandoned takeoff near V1-with the number three turbine casing ripping open. You'd think it would be cabin crew, but to my surprise it was a good old British Policeman who lean't over with a hello hello, what seems to be the matter sirs. I cant remember what I told him.
cheers Koi

[fireflybob]

The simple answer is we need a Revolution now (it would be nice if it was bloodless but I fear that would be impossible).

Government is there to protect and serve the people and not to interfere unduly in citizens everyday lives.

Have a read of Vernon Coleman's excellent book "Bloodless Revolution" or even "2020" - the latter contains his predictions for 2020 - I fear he may well be correct.

It's too late to go tinkering around at the edges - the only way to get radical change is action by the people.

[stuckgear]

I will always remember the first person onto the flight deck of my Boeing, having abandoned takeoff near V1-with the number three turbine casing ripping open. You'd think it would be cabin crew, but to my surprise it was a good old British Policeman who lean't over with a hello hello, what seems to be the matter sirs. I cant remember what I told him.



It fell down the stairs, guv'nor?

[west lakes]

Incidents like this should make governments sit up and take notice of what is really going on

BBC News - US 'sorry' for frisking of India ex-leader Abdul Kalam (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15711135)

[ExSp33db1rd]

I watched in amazement as a whole planeload of soldiers returning to the UK from Canada were security checked. Every one of them had to put his rifle through the x-ray machine. What were security looking for?


As per post #74.

[silverstrata]

For silverstrata and JW411:

Appreciate your seasoning this thread with some sanity to counter Poltergeist's marshmellows and hot air.



Oh, there's more in spades.

Security at XXX (UK) decided to do a random search of our aircraft one day. So they sent two Pakistanis in national dress to search the aircraft....!!

You have never seen a crew do such a thorough search after they left.


.

[Piltdown Man]

I'm pretty sure that the numpties in security have no right to board any aircraft to do anything. Police, Customs, CAA, DfT Inspectors and Immigration Officers all have the right (in fact they are all more than welcome (with the exception of the Wallys from DfT), they'll even get a cup of tea), but I draw the line at security personnel... for security reasons.

PM

[Algol]

Incidents like this should make governments sit up and take notice of what is really going on

BBC News - US 'sorry' for frisking of India ex-leader Abdul Kalam

I remember passing through the security theatre at JFK once, and while waiting for my flight bag to emerge from the x-ray machine I witnessed a fat and uncouth 'supervisor' roar at his TSA minion ' I DON'T CARE IF HE'S THE F'KN PRESIDENT OF THE US, HE GOES THROUGH SECURITY JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE!!'.

Evidently the numpty never read the Diplomatic Protocols either.
I'd have loved to see what the Secret Service (SS!) would do to him if he tried it on the POTUS.

[thermostat]

NVpilot, as far as I know, none of them were in uniform, none had airside passes. They were all ticket holders who just happened to rent a simulator and practice how to fly it. They didn't even practice how to land the thing. Their instructor should have suspected something and made the alarm. No pilot working for a legitimate airline, in uniform, with a pass, should be treated as if he/she is a terrorist. Not after going through the mountain of checks to get the airside pass. Please don't give the public such wrong information. We should not have to pay the price for a country that allowed in so many ways, 9/11 to happen. You gave them visas, you trained them in Florida, you rented them a simulator to practice on. You were told that something was cooking and you chose to ignore it. Now we have to put up with all this crap because every one is so paranoid. I still say, boycott, boycott, boycott. Enough is enough. They can't operate without pilots, all it needs is balls on the part of the pilots.

[mini]

As an ex forces dude who made a penny on the international security advisor circuit, I'm glad I "retired" when I did..

PS I,still get job offers almost daily, most of which are pathetic beyound belief.

fishtits, bugged out in 2005.

[Lemain]

I flew back on a German aircraft two days ago and the order was given for the seat backs to be put upright for landing except the guy in front said he would not. The crew overlooked this as he was a premium card holder, yes, I overheard the conversation. in view of this being a safety requirement I guess the crew could qualify for the title of numpty. On your logic does that mean all crew are numpties? Probably very intelligent and wise, experienced FAs, I suspect. Seats have to be up so that pax behind can adopt emergency brace position in an emergency. In some cases it's obviously not a problem if plenty of space, in the estimation of the FA. In any case FA might have decided that it's wiser to address that one seat issue in an emergency than have an argument just before landing with a difficult pax. Now if ALL the seats were back, of course that would be different, but just one is probably not a problem. Probably full marks to the FA who made that decision.

[Poltergeist]

So we all do what we want unchallenged because it avoids an argument? fyi the regulator does not agree, the seats are put in the upright position to allow egress by the row behind unhindered according to them. Or maybe they are just numpties too?

[GlueBall]

The politicians don't dare restrain them in case they are seen by the press as being weak on terrorists

...The answer closer to the truth is because senators and congressmen are usually exempt from such commoners' indignities; they are whisked through diplomatic or VIP lanes. And that's how power hungry TSA bullies have taken on a life of their own. And the big dull bulk of airline staff just roll over and put up with this crap. :{

thermostat... First, all aircrew must have security "airside" passes to enter "security" areas on the airport.

...That may help at your home country airport in your home country; but not at Heathrow, Shanghai or Sydney...or are you suggesting that we carry a bag full of airport passes for all the world's airports on your routes? :ooh:

[777boyo]

As a mere airline pilot with no experience at all of things which flash or go bang, can someone please enlighten me? Every time I pass through our crew security process on the way to work, I'm compelled to remove my footwear ("Shoes, Captain, Shoes!") when the metal detector bleeps alarmingly (which is 99% of the time due to the medical-certificate-supported steel pin in my leg) . I've always assumed that this is a result of the "Shoe Bomber" and his activities, but surely, the material he had concealed in his shoe would not have been detected by a metal-detector? So why the shoe removal, even for pax? An explanation would make me much better disposed to the security guys....who have so far been unable to give me a plausible one :confused:.

7B

[J.O.]

I understand the discomfort that comes from being scrutinized on the way to the airplane. I've expressed frustration at the seemingly nasty approach of some security officers when passing through as crew. But let's think about the proposed boycott logically. Let's say that solidarity was magically found and pilots actually did drop tools en masse for a few days. How do you suppose that would play out in the media? I can see the headlines now.

"Pilots inconvenience hundreds of thousands of passengers because they believe they are above the law".

Or how about

"Pilots want to bypass security rules designed to protect passenger safety".

You may as well be advocating that pilots no longer need to undergo occasional proficiency checks. After all, they already have a licence. Why should their competency ever come into question.

In short, a boycott is not the way to go, IMHO. It's a losing proposition.

[SouBE]

The consequences of an emergency happening on landing do not discriminate against whether the passenger is a frequent flyer card holder or not! If company SOPs dictate seats should be upright for landing then they should be....no exception. Where do we draw the line when crew start to make exceptions for differing classifications of pax? In my view, it was a lazy way out of avoiding confrontation where the crew were upholding a valid safety requirement.

[pablo shaglo]

LHR CREW BAGAGE SCREENING EVENT
DISCRIPTION OF THE EVENT
After arriving at LHR Terminal X at XXXX hrs to operate ABC 123 to XXX, I approached my airline ticket counter to enquire about the departure gate and on-time status of the flight I was to operate. I was informed that the flight was on-time and that the gate would be XX. I decided to pass through the employee screening channel in the terminal alone, prior to going on duty at XXXX hrs, so that I could find a quiet corner to sit and study the flight planning material on-line via my company website. I was not in uniform at that point (I was wearing a sweater over my uniform shirt) and I was not wearing any identifiable company markings. I presented my ICAO crew ID card and proceeded to the screening area. On entering the screening area I observed 3 people conducting screening; one male, and 2 females wearing head scarves. All three appeared to be culturally western Asian. The area was empty save for myself and a European male wearing a hi-viz vest covering what looked to be a disheveled suit on the other side of the walk through scanner. I presumed this man was something to do with the eternal construction activities within the terminal as his clothes were filthy, his shirt wrinkled and his overall appearance suggested he had just slept in the items he was wearing. None of these people wore any identification that could be seen and were not dressed in any type of uniform. My immediate impression of the screening area dynamic was that the male screener was overly concerned with presenting an air of authority, and of his image to his female co-workers.
After my items were scanned, the male screener, aggressively and full of macho bravado, told me very loudly that my liquids had to be removed from my bag. I asked why. The male screener retorted in a rude confrontational manner that all liquids were required to be scanned separately. I removed my shaving kit from my bag and placed it in a plastic tray and gave it to him. He then passed the tray through the baggage scanner and told me again that all my liquids would have to come out of my shaving kit and placed in a clear plastic bag and then be re-scanned. I then muttered under my breath “for Christ sake”. The screener immediately yelled in a very loud indignant voice, “did you just tell me to **** off?” I said, “no, I did not”. The male screener then asked his 2 female colleagues whether they had heard me say **** off? They both looked down at the ground and said yes, they had. I proceeded through the walk-through scanner. Immediately after that I asked to talk to the supervisor and was shocked to be told that in fact, the disheveled looking male standing behind the body scanner was in charge of the whole process. I asked to be taken to a room so that I may discuss with him the discourteous and rude treatment that I had been subjected to. Meanwhile the male screener was continuing to loudly assert that I had told him to **** off. I was shown into an area bordered by plastic curtains, open to the examination area and still in full view of the screening personnel.
This so called supervisor then proceeded to try and lecture me about security in the UK. I stopped him immediately and informed him that his efforts were in vain. He then started berating me for telling the male screener to **** off. I explained to him that I did not tell the male screener to **** off and that the male screener was mistakenly assuming that I had sworn at him. I explained that this person had probably heard the “F” in my “for Christ sake” muttering and had assumed that I had said **** off. A long discussion then ensued about security in general. During this discussion I was again lectured as to the fact that ”at Heathrow we do things right”. I made a point of asking why, on leaving LHR after a previous layover, my bags having been packed exactly as they were now, had they passed through the same scanning station successfully and without any further need for closer inspection? The supervisor then turned around and walked off leaving me wondering whether I should leave as well. I heard him in discussions with his personnel. He then returned and told me that he had asked his personnel again whether they had heard me say **** off and they had all said they had. In the middle of reiterating why I thought that the screener had misheard me the male screener aggressively walked into this supposedly private area and remonstrated to me again about how I had told him to **** off and that he “wasn’t going to take it”. I explained to him that he had probably heard the “F” in my “for Christ sake” muttering and had assumed that I had said **** off. Both men then rounded on me and accused me again of swearing at the male screener. The supervisor then inferred that because I had been caught not obeying the regulations, that I was creating an incident to somehow mask ‘guilt’. I asked the supervisor to clarify what he had just said after which I explained that I seriously had no regard for his regulations or the abusive, intrusive and invasive process that I had just been subjected to. The male screener then started wildly accusing me of other things in a loud voice. I pointed out to the supervisor that the screener’s complaints about me had now changed from his original assertion that I had sworn at him and that this whole ordeal had become ridiculous. The supervisor then became very officious and asked the male screener what he wanted to do about the situation. I interjected immediately that I was sorry that the screener misheard me (my exact words). The screener nodded and walked away. The supervisor then motioned for me to leave. I collected my belongings. As I was about to leave a female screener demanded that she place my toiletries in a see-through plastic bag and re-scan them. I nodded “yes”. When this finished I repacked my belongings and left the employee screening area. I proceeded, bewildered, to an empty seat in the passenger waiting area to review my flight planning documents. The time was XXXX, 30 minutes after initially entering the employee screening area. I subsequently reported for duty, on time, 45 minutes later at gate XX.
MY COMPLAINT
The UK has always been a nightmare for security/customs/immigration as far as us flight crew are concerned. I have even been threatened with arrest for just showing a general declaration to immigration authorities in Manchester. There seems to be a very wide interpretation and implementation of screening standards from one port of entry to another and from each screening team to another. Certainly this was the case in this instance and is unacceptable.
Rudeness, disrespect, discourteousness, inappropriate familiarity and plain obstruction seem to be the norm when flight crew enter and exit the UK, particularly at LHR. Many screening teams I have been unfortunate to encounter have no respect for the sensibilities of the people they are tasked with serving. In many instances my crew and I seem to have been thought of as an inconvenience and extraneous to their activities. I have yet to be treated as a professional let alone be addressed as Captain or Sir (not that this is very important to me) in my dealings with anyone tasked with screening me or my crew in the UK. My impression is that if maximum inconvenience and belittlement of flight crew can be achieved then so much the better.
In the UK (and elsewhere), screener attitude seems to be that all flight crew should be treated and regarded as common criminals and errant teenagers. This is unacceptable, as is a seeming overarching intent to embarrass us. Intra-screener team point scoring off flight crew for some sort of egotistical or perverted sense of professional pride is an affront. We pilots do not tolerate it in the cockpit and neither should we tolerate it elsewhere.
In the event I have described, I was subjected to false accusations, threats and a group ‘mobbing’ by male and female screening and supervisory staff who were more interested in making sure they falsely accused me of things I did not do in unison rather than actually acknowledging the facts. This is unacceptable.
Not being able to readily identify, both by ID badges and/or uniform, on-duty screener personel is unacceptable. As employees, we have a right to know who and/or what are conducting security and screening activities-particularly as it pertains to us.
SUMMARY
The concept of flight crew screening is logically and fundamentally, largely redundant. We as flight crew seem to be unwilling participants in a giant ‘shutting the door after the horse has bolted’ exercise. Indeed, none of the very few security events involving flight crew over the years could have been prevented by the procedures in the event I have described above save for, maybe, an incident involving the downing of a USAir BAE 146 by a disgruntled ticket agent in the 80’s. This tragic event happened at a time when airport employee security screening did not occur in the USA and could have been easily prevented by comprehensive employee assistance programs and peer group monitoring.
Further, I ask why we flight crew must be screened at all when we arrive at an airport to undertake our duties? In this modern era of comprehensive, world encompassing, far reaching, highly technological intelligence gathering and dissemination surely there is a more efficient, less futile way to attain the flight crew specific goals of aviation security? I can only assume that flight crew screening is carried out for far more suspect, invasive, personal liberty contravening reasons using mass fear as an excuse.
Most importantly though, as to the event at LHR I have described above, to have to endure the treatment I received, at the beginning of what would turn out be a long, stressful 12-13hr flight duty period ending with holding delays and a landing in the midst of severe convective activity in the arrival Terminal FIR, was and is unacceptable and plainly did not contribute to or add to safety or security in any way. Rather, it had completely the reverse effect.

Captain
Major International Airline

[Hotel Tango]

The above has been circulating for some time already. It's old news.

[pablo shaglo]

Actually this happened recently. Obviously then these issues/problems are systemic and ongoing.

[Robert G Mugabe]

Due to a recent change to the Department for Transport (DfT) Single Consolidated Direction 2010 (SCD) it is no longer permitted for staff to carry liquid based food stuff into the Critical Part. This includes all food which is suspended in a liquid i.e. gravy, sauce, brine, oil or syrup due to the fact that it is not possible to quantify the amount of liquid present.

And all staff requiring access to the CP are requested not to compromise security operations and security staff by attempting to take such food items into the CP. Therefore with immediate effect security staff have been directed to confiscate and dispose of the foods described above, examples of liquid based food stuffs now prohibited to be carried into the CP include, Spaghetti, Bolognaise, Soups, Broth etc. the list is not exhaustive.

The latest from this pathetic island.

[Flightmech]

How about the BAA and other "protected by DFT" airport security provide airport workers with pre-searched rations that are in silver foil and security sealed:ugh: Or maybe we should just work 12 hour shifts and not eat. Pathetic. Gone ******* mad:oh:

Cant remember who it was but maybe that idiot who came on here about a "biryani bomb" was right all along.

[Hotel Tango]

Security personnel at Brussels airport are allowed to bring litre bottles of water/fizzy drink through to the sterile area unchecked. I asked the supervisor why this was permitted? He shrugged his shoulders and said that he didn't make the rules.

[Deep and fast]

I had BAA security threaten to revoke my airside pass for questioning their procedures.

The security search in Stansted in particular were rude beyond belief during the period from early to late 2009. Then one Sunday night it was all smiles and customer service. What a huge change! Someone must have kicked arse.

The job can be difficult enough for all parties, but the flight crew should not be treated the same as the travelling public. With some airlines not providing food and drink for the flight deck, it is an outrage that I cannot take food and drink with me. Contact lens solution is another case in point. It is all stupid and disproportionate.

Properly check the staff and let them do their job.

D and F

[mrmum]

Flightmech

It was the hitcher on this thread from last year;
http://www.pprune.org/engineers-technicians/432315-new-badge-wear-5.html
specifically post #86, brilliant thread, so funny, just sat and re-read it all again:D:D:D:D

[DOVES]

This could be a tip for aircraft accident investigators (and I do not think it has ever been given the right attention).
After checking: efficiency of the aircraft, airworthiness and compliance with the schedule of inspections, aircraft technical log, proper documents on board, correct flight planning, proper supply of liquid, ground / air communications, earth scrap in terms of: dynamic projection, hole depth, length and direction of the groove, position of levers and switches, black boxes reading, pilots “currency” in terms of: licenses and medical validity, correctness of the machine transition, deadlines meeting, simulator checks, and line checks, sufficient rest before flight, not excessive flight and duty time, and the more you have, the more you put; SHOULD BE MEASURED THE STRESS LEVEL, AND THE RESULTING CONSEQUENCES, IN WHICH HE, THE CAPTAIN AND/OR THE FIRST OFFICIAL, WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FLIGHT BY THOSE TORMENTORS.
HOW IS IT TO BE CONSIDERED?
DUTY TIME?
FLIGHT CHECK TIME?...
Fly Safe
DOVE

[EEngr]

I was not in uniform at that point (I was wearing a sweater over my uniform shirt) and I was not wearing any identifiable company markings. I presented my ICAO crew ID card and proceeded to the screening area.
So they knew who this person was. Uniform or not, that ID card is enough.

My immediate impression of the screening area dynamic was that the male screener was overly concerned with presenting an air of authority, and of his image to his female co-workers.
And who do better use than a big shot pilot? This is an all too typical response by minor officials with very limited power overall but one area of responsibility that they can use to do a bit of d**k swinging.

Limited power because the job description gives them very little leeway for judgment calls or the use of common sense. The rules say put liquids in a clear bag and scan them separately. If this guy had picked someone's grandma for not adhering to the rules to be made an example of, his co-workers would figure him as an impotent little bully.

[S76Heavy]

Reminds me of the time the "security" gits took my sunscreen bottle from me (which I had forgotten to take out of my bag that had previously been in hold baggage coming back from an Asian trip but now in hand baggage on an unexpected trip to the UK.
"No sir, no terrorist is going to get through on our watch", they beamed at each other. Then after passing security, I went to our crew room to drink the 2 cans of soft drinks I had also forgotten about (I'm so not a morning person) and were still in my hand luggage after going through the Xray machine..:ugh:

Security in the UK is a joke, it is often rude and mostly ineffective.
Does Chirping have any effect at all? One of these days the security hassle is going to be the last straw and the final hole in the Swiss cheese, dus to the unnecessary stress and distraction that it causes.

Face it, the terrorists have won, big time.:yuk:

[captplaystation]

UK= Jobsworth mentality, I litre of bottled water is evidently MUCH more dangerous than 20,800kg of JETA1 :D Reminds me why I left 20 years ago :yuk: . . .among many reasons.

Denmark - please put your liquids seperately so we can see them :ok:

Latvia/Lithuania/Estonia/Norway/Sweden/Finland/Spain . . .we see your ID, we give you just a LITTLE bit of credit to be trustworthy, and in any case, you are driving a big f-ing metal tube containing 20800kg of VERY flammable liquid, so. . . . :ok::ok::ok:

[BobnSpike]

http://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/2010/11/23/c1f3b42e-c41b-4d7f-aa94-e853c6a2a60c.jpg

[Loose rivets]

Former state solicitor general Ted Cruz . . . Dewhurst . . .


Last night, serious grilling on their policies. Mildly interesting, but when the came to the, and I quote, "groping" of the American flyer, they were both spitting nails in the same direction.

Why oh why, if even these people feel the same as we do, aren't there major changes to the way people are treated?


I'm fairly typical of my bracket, inasmuch as I'm traveling about 1/3rd of the times I would have done, simply because of the misery of the way I'm treated at airports and the discomfort of the flight.

[BobnSpike]

Sorry. One more. He is dead, but his legacy lives on:

http://www.moneyand****.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/osama_tsa_balls.jpg

The title to the thread refers to the "balance of power" in RE: airport security. Who is playing the music and who is dancing to it?

[Tommy Tilt]

MEASURED THE STRESS LEVEL, AND THE RESULTING CONSEQUENCES, IN WHICH HE, THE CAPTAIN AND/OR THE FIRST OFFICIAL, WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FLIGHT BY THOSE TORMENTORS.

Absolutely spot on. A crew member would be well within their rights to report unfit for duty due to stress caused by officious screening. It is mandatory that crew report fit for duty both physically and mentally.

When are the pilot and cabin crew unions going to address this ongoing problem?

UK airports, especially Heathrow, have an appalling reputation for their over aggressive attitude toward staff and passengers. Some airports in the USA are not much better.

BAA = Bumbling Autocratic Assholes
TSA = Thousands Standing Around

[helen-damnation]

Had a cracker coming through LHR recently. I was asked how many bottles I had and if they were alcohol. 6 (3.5 ltrs) and yes.

'Ah, you can only have 2 litres in one case'. 'Pardon?'

We managed to sort it out and find a solution but has anyone else had this?
I've subsequently looked in DG regs - Less than 24% by volume; unrestricted.
LHR website link to the CAA - Less than 24% by volume; unrestricted.
Company limit (CC manual) - Less than 24% by volume; unrestricted.

Any info on who to contact and verify this much appreciated. :ugh:

Have to add that the staff were polite and not threatening, just doing their job which I can respect.

[Tommy Tilt]

the staff were polite and not threatening

Clearly, you hav'nt been "coming through LHR" enough !

[SloppyJoe]

The problem is not security staff doing their job its the total lack of common sense. You say you are slf so am pretty sure you don't have to deal with this :mad: day in day out.

Can't take brie through but cheddar is ok, managed to convince them to let me keep the munster as it was not quite as soft as the brie.

Not allowed a bottle of water, but ok to buy a few liters of flammable liquid once through security.

Had a salad once to eat on the flight, was confiscated as could not verify the dressing totaled less than 100ml.

Have had a metal fork removed from my bag due to the security risk. On the plane have metal forks and knives, a couple of crow bars and also my right hand connected to a 275 tonne metal tube with 100,000+ liters of fuel in it.

Had a meatball sandwich from subway confiscated, although they agreed the sauce totaled less than 100ml you could in fact mash the meatballs into the sauce to create a paste of more than 100ml.

In some countries/airports it is totally out of control.

[A and C]

When I started this thread it was in an attempt to restore some balance to the UK security system, at the time a Govenment body was looking into the future regulation of the UK airport security system and the way it was regulated and implemented.

It is an unfortunate truth that with the growth of air travel the idiots in society have greater access to flights and so the security problem won't go away and so airport security will be with us for the foreseeable future.

With this in mind I was keen to get the people in the airline industry to make submissions to the Govenment body that is to shape the future of airport security in the UK.

The pages above are full of incidents of security ( shal we say ) bad practice, all that has done is turn the airport staff against the security system following the self destruction of any respect or faith in their ability to deal with anything of importance resulting from their own petty actions.

My hope is that if CHIRP gets a formal role to investigate the actions of security staff and take action to resolve issues this will result in a much better and secure environment, the security system might eventually recover some respect from airport workers, but this will be an uphill struggle.

I just thank my luck that since having started this thread my work is now mostly in Scandinavia were security staff are polite and respectfull, I suspect this stance allows them to be more vidulant as unlike in the UK they don't waist time being rude and aggressive.

It will be interesting to see what the Govenment body recommends for the future of UK airport security, my submission made it clear that the system needed more oversight if results were to be improved and respect return. I hope others took the trouble to make submissions as this is the only way we will return the balance of power to aviation professionals and have pointless rules and rude petty operatives removed.

[glad rag]

Singularly, you have completely ignored the most obvious way for terrorist carnage in your attempts to justify the inept PC bound security checks in uk airports.:ugh:





"all I said was I hope they aren't going to Dundee" boy that got me in trouble....

[blimey]

Security 'Numpties' don't tell you how to fly your mostly automatic plane, why should you pass comment on their job?

Yes, we have a big button marked 'UP' and one marked 'DOWN' - any old chimp could do it. That's obviously why it doesn't matter what agitated mental state the presser is in when he flies. :hmm:

[sam dilly]

A Titan 737 flight arrived at Exeter 'en route' from Lourdes in France to Stansted, at the beginning of June.
80 got off at EXT the 50 old, disabled, sick, transiting passengers were then invited to disembark for a security check.
They all went through the magic arch, and then struggled back up the steps to the aircraft, there was no immigration or other check, they got all that at STN.
These were a part of a private group, all had travelled out together, they were coming back from our nearest neighbour country, France, but the dept. of Transport have decreed that French security is not strict enough, hence get them all off, and recheck them.
Now the organisers have been billed £750.00 just to pay for a security check !
Plus of course Titan have been billed for all the usual high rates at EXT.
Crazy or what

[Dried ears]

To the brave slf poster above, the pertinent points are to prove security pretty pointless for air crew, and those are iterated with reference to large amounts of kerosene, tonnes of metal under our control. If we are a security threat, requiring checks as to whether we have more than 100ml of liquid in our bags, why are we allowed a license and crew pass which gives us access to the aircraft and its controls? What is the point in checking us at all, taking a benign bottle of water from us yet still then allowing us access to the flight deck and its firefighting equipment, some of which could be construed, in the wrong hands as a deadly weapon?

The answer is that there is no point. No point whatsoever. It is needless, futile and a waste time and money.

Trying to appease us as to why the idiocy occurs is similarly futile. The fact is that it occurs and it's daft.

[A and C]

In my post above I said that my submission to the body investigating UK airport security made it clear that more oversight was needed, what I failed to make clear in my post above was that this oversight MUST be independent of the UK security industry as this is the only way that any sort of balance might return.

I made it crystal clear that the security industry ramps up threats and paranoia for its own ends, the more the politicians are worried about being seen to be weak on terrorism the more minimum wage numptys charged at sky high rates the industry can employ and make a fat Proffit from.

On an industry wide perspective independent oversight will restrain the costs to the airline industry of the security parasites, from an individual perspective it will give you and I the users of the system a route for complant and redress that avoids court action or calling the police and unlike at the moment it will also avoid the investigation being carried out by the bosses of the people who cause us as crew so much trouble.

I do hope that the airlines who no doubt made submissions to the contaltation made these points clear as the cost of security and more importantly the way it is implemented is having a corrosive effect on the profitability of airlines and by default the job security of airline staff.

[fireflybob]

Why not have a planned and organized mass walk out of all commercial pilots and cabin crew for 1-3 days and ground every commercial flight until sensibility and common sense is restored in this completly screwed up system.

Above the Clouds, I could not agree more but the problem is that pilots and to a lesser extent cabin crew are not unified.

Am not saying I agree with all his union's tactics on every occasion but compare this to Bob Crowe at the RMT - if their "members" were subject to this abuse on a daily basis there would be an immediate 24 strike bringing the network to a halt and the politicians would have it fixed pronto!

I agree totally that this is what is required but the question is how to organise it?

[Load Toad]

Well - form a union - but most PProoners don't like unions because it isn't the right wing thing to do.

So the whole 'There is power in a union' goes out of the window.

Ever felt like you've been cheated?

[gusting_45]

Countdown conundrum.

I doubt if you're sorry. Your comments are offensive. It is my daughter you refer to and how dare you make assumptions about her past efforts or potential. I know not of your life's trials and tribulations and you know nothing of hers.

In point of fact she has left baa now and has moved on.

However, she is not and has never been a numpty and the vast majority (granted not all) of her friends and colleagues are friendly and diligent people performing their jobs as they have been tasked to do.

Given the content and tone of yours and others postings I would suggest that the attitude you receive from security if the same as the one you present to them.

Rant away if it makes you feel better but it will change nothing.

[FERetd]

Gusting 45 Quote:- "Rant away if it makes you feel better but it will change nothing."

That is exactly what Countdowncondrum was getting at.

Sadly, the peolple of the U.K are a pushover, the resolute fighting spirit has long gone.

Why else would you be the servants of foreign powers in Brussels/Strasburg, without even a whimper?

[A and C]

While not wishing to get into personal abuse about individuals I am afraid that the way airport workers are treated by security staff as a whole (some are good but they are few and far between) is indicated well by the attitude of Countdown Conundrum.

If this attitude came from one individual I would side with you but Unfortunatly there are well documented accounts of hundeds of inccidents involving shall we just call it over zealous behavior bu UK security staff.

To my mind the best way to solve the problem is independent oversight of the security system ( just as I said in my submission to the UK government consultation ) the security staff who are doing a good job would have nothing to fear from this however those who see their workday as an opportunity to take revenge on those of us who have climbed a little further up the career ladder would find life a little more difficult.

I would like to see the security staff at UK airports seen with respect by other airport workers, perhaps a little independent oversight might improve the general standard of behavior to a position were the security system deserves that respect.

[countdownconundrum]

I'm very sorry to have said she should have worked harder etc..

Sure it was just a passing gig.. She's moved on now, so calling them numpties technically isn't directed at her.. Besides any of that, I wouldn't think for a minute she's anything other than brilliant, talented and friendly!

Anyway..

The staff at Stn for instance prove they're numpties often.. Jumped up w*^%#s you can read the expressions on their faces and tone of their voice.. I know what they are thinking.. Oh here comes another pilot earning 10 times what I do, he gets to work in an environment of stunning wonders.. Let's take him down a peg or two.. And take his chap stick!

In Italy, they are friendly, respectful and efficient. I've never been delayed, bag searched or spoken down to. They call you sir and behave as if they are just doing they're job.. Their uk counterparts seem to enjoy the clash with the crew and patronising them.. They don't respond to being questioned and threaten with not letting you through or reporting you to your company etc etc.. A classic case of put up, shut up..

I've flown in most parts of the world and the uk stands out..

What on earth would motivate someone to treat the aircrew as suspected terrorists.. It purely satisfies their own ego and fuels their filthy perversions.. The problem is the DFT don't seem to give a damn. Pilots are irrelevant..

This whole thread stands testament to the fact there's a serious problem, and the tail is indeed wagging the dog.. If this many people have heard that many stories and witnessed events themselves.. There's a serious issue here..

it is them and us.. We hate them.. We don't need them.. Let's fight back

[gusting_45]

When you speak of oversight, what you may not realise that the DFT are a permanent feature 24 hours a day at every airport with a screening function. The oversight is there, you may not like it but it exists.

Your ire should be directed at the DFT not those who apply it's directives.

You say you dislike the intrusiveness, neither do I, but that is what is mandated.

If you have an enemy per se it is the DFT.

I would suspect that I 'suffer' more at the hands of the security system more than you. I have had orthopaedic surgery which left me with stainless steel bits. Every time I pass through screening I set off the scanner, every time I get the full treatment. It is a nuisance, boring and in my mind nonsensical, but, it is the system. I don't resent the fact that the security personnel do their job. It is their job.

There is a problem with the zealousness which UK plc has adopted the security machine. One has only to witness the full scale alert on the M6 toll road today. Somebody light up an electronic cigarette on a bus. Full scale security alert ensued.

The gratitude for this state of affairs must go to the political hierarchy of this country who have made it a top line target.

As an aside, I'm not British, although living/working in England so have no personal agenda one way or the other.

I will be leaving these shores behind me some time soon, apart from the turnarounds that is, and can look forward to the more cordial security environment described elsewhere.

I suspect that we agree on the inadequacies of security screening not to mention its absurdities, however, I will face it with a smile rather than a snarl as this achieves the best result for me.

The only exception I really take to some of the comments above is the personal abuse and rudeness. You clearly, from your comments, don't like to be the recipients but are at the same time quite happy to dole it out.

As a final remark, thank goodness, if threatened with being reported by an obnoxious security officer, say fine and go with the process. You will not be the loser. I have done so in the past and it is the best way to illustrate that their actions are inappropriate. I have also handed them my company mobile and offered to have them speak to my crewing department and duty pilot so they can explain why it is that I am unable to report for my assigned duty. It works wonders, you should try, it provides a moral victory and is much more satisfying than huffing and puffing here.

[twb3]

In 1971 a psychology experiment that has become known as the Stanford Prison Experiment had to be abandoned early because the subject selected as "guards" became abusive of the subjects selected as "prisoners".

My take-away from the Stanford Prison Experiment is that people given authority over others without accountability or responsibility will always abuse those under their authority.

Since 9/11, a real-world Stanford Prison Experiment has played out in the world's airports. For the most part, the screeners are recruited from a different population than aircrew, airport professionals and the traveling public - so they are already primed with an us-versus-them mentality that accelerates their descent into abuse.

Until and unless screeners are subjected to severe consequences for abusing crew, staff and passengers, I do not see how the situation can get better.

I wish I had a better solution. For now, I fly as infrequently as I can. That's a solution for me as a retired aviation professional, but dosen't work for working professionals.

I can promise you that if a flight I am scheduled on is cancelled due to crew stress caused by screener abuse, I will place the blame where it belongs - on the TSA thugs.

[A and C]

I am not sure if your reply was aimed in my direction but if you read my post carefully you will see that I want independent oversight of the SECURITY SYSTEM, to my mind that includes the DfT as well as the airport security providers.

These forums are usually a safety valve to enable people to let off a little steam, I hope that some of them took the time to take part in the government consultation that I flagged up when I started this thread as it is only by perusing the aim of a better security system by democratic means that we have any chance of improving the system.

[niceneasy]

Allegedly,....
Qantas F/O rips off shirt and has hissy fit at an Australian airport security screening point. Any news?

[DB6]

If it was a woman we will need photographic proof :E.

[illusion]

DB6,
You may want to do a bit more research into things before publishing such a sweeping statement.

Careful what you wish for :eek:

[Shell Management]

Is this news?

Its been well recognised for some time that many delussional pilots think they are exempt from security.

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/468344-security-restore-balance-power.html

[Flightmech]

Its been well recognised for some time that many delussional pilots think they are exempt from security.

Typical pathetic response form Shell Management. If only you had to put up with some of the **** that pilots, engineers and any other ground staff have to put up with on a daily basis. Nobody thinks they should be excempt, just not treated like **** by someone who thinks that they have ultimate power.:ugh:

[RoyHudd]

Please don't feed the troll.

[Ranger One]

At least most Brit security guards don't spit at you, take an interest in your home address, or request the loan of a colleague's sidearm in order to murder you when you decide to document their continual harassment of your crew. The situation on Hawai'i appears to be less favorable:

Maui Airport Security Guard Assaults Videographer - YouTube (http://youtu.be/bJrXZyC4gew)

(Edit: I've been reading the background to this. The video was shot by the CEO of Pacific Wings, a Hawaiian commuter operator. The back story was continual racial harassment of the (white) commuter crews by the local (native Hawaiian) security thugs. Culminated in the head of security handcuffing the CEO and giving him a good kicking in the head for daring to file a formal complaint, an attack for which he was prosecuted, but acquitted in a farcical trial by a 100% native Hawaiian jury.)

[Finalveridict]

Where did we let these guys take the ball and run away with it? Once again, passing through the airport security gate at LHR, I beeped, going through the metal detector and then only I did, because the first agent insisted that the removal of my shoes was not necessary. What follows was first, a manhandling that I would only would have wanted would I have had a "rainbow coloured tag" on my luggage which I obviously had not, and I have nothing against people of that sexual orientation but it made me feel really uncomfortable! Then, the MI-5 wannabe agent "x-rayed" my prescription eye drops for some secret reason that he could not share with me and then recommended me to NOT wear my watch for future reference?! Why are these little people on this power trip? Why, do we, as commanders have let them subject us to all this nonsense? I agree with the screening of all people to board the aircraft but lets have some common sense here and lets once and for all stop groping the flight crew and have these "people" stop giving us advise on what or what not to wear! There is little respect left for aircraft commanders and we are partly responsible for it! I for one will try to stop getting trips to the UK!

[funfly]

So tell me, how many terrorists have been caught by airport security then?

[500 above]

The TSA is probably worse. It's not just the UK. Fundamentally, I agree with you though. Harassment to crews, that's all it is.

[moonym20]

You should pop across to T5 one of the days. You will love it if they have a newbie on the x-ray scanner.

It took one hour for me to pass though the metal detector then wait while 'security' then proceeded to empty some other poor sods case then my own crew case of every last piece of its contents. The 'operative' stopped mid sentence from asking me if I was going somewhere nice on holiday as my aircrew ID and stripes were removed from the case.

The thing that surprised me was how absolutely nothing was left in the case, the cause of the false alarm? - A single Lynx shot spray left at the bottom. - Well, i feel safer now anyway. At least the rescan of the case, explosives sweep of said case and liquid test of everything in the magical sealable bag came bag negative. A relief.

Security is one thing lately that as a professional, is really, really, starting to get under my skin!

[eastern wiseguy]

Try being staff and going through the nonsense every day.

Shoes off...belt off ...car trunk/hood up...no water or "runny foods" .I had my coins x rayed the other day. The machine bleeps on a quota so you are searched again. Couple this with sitting waiting for 20 minutes at 0600 then a couple of hours on radar at the start of the morning rush.

It is NOT conducive to a safety critical environment.

There appears to be NOTHING that can be done. I retire in 2013 and it can't come soon enough.

how many terrorists have been caught by airport security then

How would we know? How many have been dissuaded? (my guess is none)

[student88]

They are just doing the job they are paid to do, like traffic wardens, police officers and tax collectors.

[hetfield]

One of some reasons why I took the chance to retire early...
:O

[PENKO]

So why did you wear your watch through the metal detector? Pretty simple isn't it, wear metal, get groped!

I don't like passing through the security check, but how many more topics can we open about being 'manhandled'? Do you think the security people like groping your (or a hundred other) sweaty bullocks?

[Finalveridict]

I agree with all of you! I can't wait to escape this! And you are right, the US TSA is as bad, so everything I said goes for them as well!

[DeeCee]

Their job is not to miss anything. They appear to be doing it. Get over it.

[student88]

I work for an airline, the only time I 'bleep' is when the archway picks me as a random frisk - I have learnt over the years what things set the detector off and remove them as required.

Times have changed and just because you're a captain you don't immediately get my respect. Respect is mutual, you show me some and I'll show some back.

[hellsbrink]

So, let me get this straight.

then recommended me to NOT wear my watch for future reference?!

Someone who flies for a living, and goes through airport security regularly, does not take ALL metalwork that can be removed from his person and wonders why things go "beep" when he walks through the arch?

One wonders what sort of chip was on the shoulder to make the security drones act in the manner described (which has probably been exaggerated, btw), when it's clear that the arch will go "beep" when you are wearing a large chunk of metal on your wrist which should have been removed in the first case!

Sorry, but I'm with student88. I used to go through these very checks on multiple occasions per day, every day, and I NEVER had an issue with the drones. "Respect" has to work both ways.

[Agaricus bisporus]

Base - SE UK major airport.

I have never taken my watch off and even when I have beeped I have never been asked to remove it. Recently I've had some numptie wipe his hands roughly all over my uniform jacket as though it were a towel even when it hasn't beeped. How long before we have tubs of vaseline and endoscopes behind a screen? I'm not joking!

Until we started positioning regularly as pax about 3 years ago I never flew without my Leatherman tool which includes a 3 inch blade. In the nine years since Sept 11 it was spotted twice and on both occasions allowed through as it is a tool of the trade. However, this is a shocking indictment on the ability of "security" to spot such things. If I fly 200 days per year thats two spots in 1800 scans. Utterly appalling, imho.


The ludicrous obsession with metal indicates the total absence of reason or logic in this process. The internet is full of ads for ceramic knives, but then knives are no longer a credible threat to security after that daft door was fitted to "negate" that threat...right...?

The obsession with liquids too is totally irrational, esp the morphing of "liquid" to include solid mascara and allowing risotto but confiscating rice pudding as happened to a colleague of mine recently...
A few days ago I watched a contractor take a big toolbox and a 25litre bucket of paint through out security channel, neither were examined, nor are the police festooned with weapons. A TV documentary trying to get actors in fancy dress through security would be a hoot!

Would anyone notice if I lined my flight bag with 2-3mm of plasticene (aka Semtex)? I VERY much doubt it. What does that tell us about the point of all this harassment?

I agree entirely about the excessive intimacy of current search procedures, I have been very close to crying sexual assault on a number of occasions and when I've told the goon to back off I've received no reaction whatsoever, they're obviously taught to ignore such advice. A 999 call will probably change that though.

Anyway, as we all can see this farcical harassment is so utterly pointless as it catches nothing, puts off no one and is only there so if another atrocity happens our craven politicos can slope shoulders and cry in unison, "It wasn't our fault, look at all the draconian procedures we put in place to prevent it, you can't blame us". There are a thousand easier and more practical ways to get nasties onto an aircraft, starting with airport service vehicles which cannot be searched.

Then look at the stupidity of the traffic barriers around our airports, STN with its battleship-built tank-traps - and a hundred yards away the airport is "protected" by a chainlink fence.

Futile, pointless and an utter waste of money - except for the vast and ever growing "security" industry which has a real vested interest in ever increasing this idiocy to big up their business.

Call me a cynic if you like, but am I wrong?

[Kingfisher]

Not this websites favourite newspaper but this article is worth a read on this thread.

London 2012: How grins, not guns, saved the Olympics | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2182807/London-2012-How-grins-guns-saved-Olympics.html)

[student88]

The battleship protection at STN is only a result of some twit driving a 4x4 into Glasgow airport and setting fire to it. What ducks me off the most about airports is having to pay £1 to drop off my relatives at LTN, not having to have my liquids in the worlds most restrictive bag or having my bag swabbed for explosives (which it once tested positive for?!).

[Lear60]

google it, quite a few, and probably many more will be put off by these security 'drones'.

In a previous life I was trained in counter terrorist search (military). I managed to get a 6" blade through security at Baghdad airport (as part of training) and I'd rather be felt up than hi-jacked/blown up any day of the week.

P.S. if you're not being man-handled they're not searching you properly!

[captplaystation]

In most of the more "enlightened" European nations, crew can freely bring liquids through on duty (a somewhat dream scenario for the Ryanair drones in STN I imagine ,who were faced with either buying overpriced water airside or taking the glorified tap water from the crew room. . .what did they call it officially, "filtered water" or something equally salubrious ? is that still the scenario in the UK ? I am happily long gone from there)
Very refreshing to pass through Security in Scandilands & be targeted for a grope by some Blonde lovely. 1st time it happened I gave a funny look & was offered a male searcher" Oh no, fine by me, take your time" :rolleyes: I asked if she ever had any refusals, "Well, sometimes wives refuse on the husbands behalf" she confided ;)
I think some female CC prefer to take the same-sex option, and this I understand, a few more "worldy" ones use the opportunity as an excuse to sexually harass the "groper" . . . . good on them :ok:
It is sometimes a right royal pain in the hole, and I have to say my worst exoeriences have been on that small island I come from between Europe & the Atlantic (the bigger Eastern variety)

[PURPLE PITOT]

Going through the crew channel in manchester a few years back, the numpties were up to their usual antics, and there was a lot of tension, things were about to kick off. In walk a couple of armed coppers going airside. One senses the tension, unloads his mp5, and puts it in a tray and through the scanner.

Dissolved the tension in a heartbeat:ok:

[Flightmech]

While I detest the attitude of some security staff you only have yourself to blame if you knowingly don't remove any metal before going through the arch, your watch for example!!

[biddedout]

Not usre why pilots need such big watches anyway these days. Most aircraft have several very accurate clock display.
As someone said, just remove the things that regularly cause a problem and normally you will get away without needing a patdown.

Never had much of a problem with MAN security they are generally polite and friendly. I only have problems BHD where my bag gets pulled aside everytime because it contains a headset and a torch. := They seem to delight in having you stand around for 20 minutes in the waiting for a search queue.

[beamer]

At BHX we tend to see the same people most days and as such have a bit of a laugh about it all - a smile and a bit of banter goes a long way. However, when on one's travels, the inconsistency is staggering and some of the 'frisking' is a little too 'friendly' for my liking - maybe its my deodorant :(

[Moi/]

Passing airside is part of your job, so you should know what sets the detector off, and what does not.

The longest part of getting airside, is waiting in the queue for the plastic tray.

If the staff are having a bad day, and you should know better about the above. Then maybe the staff will make an example out of you.

"Be the Grey Man" as they say.

[Capot]

Don't worry, fellas, the good news is the CAA is taking over responsibility for airport security in the UK.

So it's all going to work much better, and common-sense will be the governing rule.

Won't it?

[A and C]

I always walk into the security check area with the attitude that I will treat the staff with respect, the only place that I don't get this respect returned is in the UK.............

I can't understand why this should be when security staff in the rest of Europe treat the crews with respect.

I can only offer the theory that the minority of UK security staff that act in this way are simply under achiving, lazy people who have no future, and no ability to control the course of their lives, their reaction is to take out their shortcomings on anything that represents authority by using to the full the little power they have. Hence the Captain is a prime target for abuse.

To me the situation reflects the very low quality of the security management in the UK, the peope who I have the most respect for are the majority of UK security staff who do the job properly despite the pressure they must get to abuse their power from the under achievers and the lack of appropriate supervision and direction from the poor management.

[500 above]

The world's gone silly. Flying a Bizjet through Oslo, the security guards asked the crew to remove shoes, not the pax.

[Hotel Tango]

I make sure that I take everything off that may set the alarm off, including my watch. My only problem is that I seem to be Mr Random at an unusually high 50% plus of the time I travel. I always wish I could be that lucky with the lottery! I have no sympathy with the OP. He/she, who goes through umpteen checks a week showed a lack of common sense going through with a metal watch. Although I sympathise with the frustration of aircrew and security checks, I believe they need to tolerate it as we all do. Many of us (pax), including me, have an equally solid and valid reason to be exempt from security. As far as I'm concerned security HAS to be for all.

[rapidshot]

TSA harassment (http://www.hiphopworld.com/tsa-horror-stories/)

[glad rag]

"Be the Grey Man" as they say.

I think you have missed the entire point by a couple of country miles....

[pilotmike]

there was a lot of tension, things were about to kick off. In walk a couple of armed coppers going airside. One senses the tension, unloads his mp5, and puts it in a tray and through the scanner.

Dissolved the tension in a heartbeat :ok:

Wow! Did he put on some really calm, soothing music on his MP5 player to dissolve all the tension then?!:)

[rmac]

@ PilotMike ......;)

Seriously though, when things get tense, it's a fine line between whether it breaks on the side of humour or anger ....humour being the best option most times :}

[PENKO]

'How many terrorists are caught by security' is a question that is asked time and time again. Am I the only one that thinks this is a strange question which only shows frustration on our part? Do you ask your guard dog how many thieves it has mauled the past week? I don't know, maybe some of you guys do :)

Anyway, it's not only terrorists that are considered a threat. Think about the psychologically unstable people out there who can do just as much harm, think about deported aliens who might have a good reason to thwart their deportation, think about criminals, or chavs with knives on a long flight...

[Mikehotel152]

Exactly. Few complain about the existence of security checkpoints; most anger is directed at the manner in which the UK security officers do their jobs.

The key point is that the energy is applied to the wrong part of the security net. Zealous officers who treat staff with utter disrespect at staff security? Does that enhance security?

There are often 6 officers to man VP2 at STN where 2 could do the job. Half of them are watching TV while eating iced buns and drinking tea. :oh:

[smith]

Listen, airline crew and staff should not be immune from security searches. Look at the staff guy who unloaded six shots and brought down a PSA flight in California and the FedEx guy that attacked the flight crew of a DC-10 with a hammer and speargun in Memphis. Just because you are not a terrorist doesn't mean you are not a threat. What happens when you find out that your wife has been screwing your best mate when you're on duty, you're feeling suicidal and you want to get noticed?

Try asking those guys off the FedEx with holes in their heads and who have never flown since if they wished there was staff screening at airports and undoubtably they will say yes.

If all this security hassle stops one person getting on board with a weapon and bringing down an aircraft with many souls on board it will have been woth it.

[Mikehotel152]

As I say, nobody suggests pilots shouldn't go through security.

[Gulfstreamaviator]

One mans weapon is another mans safety equipment.

One does not need to bring a hammer on to the flight deck.

A plastic knife from the catering tray is in my opinion more dangerous than a metal one.

A finger in the right place can cause death almost as quick as a "weapon".

Dury free liquids are as dangerous as any fire starter under the right circumstances.

Breast milk, is not as dangerous as they think....

[jackharr]

I frequently travel on sea crossings by ferry. What a pleasant experience that is compared to the security paranoia surrounding flying.

(Retired airline captain - and now I almost wish instead I could say retired sea captain).

[tomahawk_pa38]

I was flying back from Linz airport back last February with 3 friends (we're not aircrew). My friend had a small (150mm) plastic tripod for his camera confiscated at the security desk. In spite of his protestations they wouldn't relent and when my friend complained they called the police. My friend argued his case even pointing to the vast array of duty free bottles (and big leather belts with enormous steel buckles) he could buy should he want to hit the pilot over the head ! They wouldn't relent and eventually gave my friend details of who he could complain to.

Here's the strange bit that I bet you wouldn't get in the UK. As we were going through passport control, said policeman called my friend out of the line and gave him his tripod back WITH an apology for the agravation.

[carousel]

In the UK you would have kept your tripod in the first place.:O

[Heathrow Harry]

yeah but you might have had to use an "official" plastic bag for your liquids

Wish I had the contract for those

[B Fraser]

I was given a small official plastic bag for my small tube of shaving cream at Bristol last week by a helpful security wench. The security of the Western world was duly assured. Nothing was said about the long heavy battery on the back of my laptop that unclips in a second and becomes a very effective cosh. It's also very handy for smashing a mirror in an aircraft lav and a piece of duct tape for fixing a shard to the battery would make a very nasty weapon. The shaving cream was in polythene so everyone was happy.

:ugh:

[DOVES]

Has anybody ever heard of crow bars and axes among emergency equipment on board of a passengers plane?
Perhaps they have been removed thanks to the prudence of SECURITY.
Once upon a time (well before 11 September) we had also signal flare pistols.
And rifle with ammunition on the North Pole Routes.

[PukinDog]

Personally, what ticks me off the most about security is allowing people to carry on guitars. Each one represents 6 potential garrotes, and not one of them isn't oversized which creates a cascading overhead bin shortage problem onboard. Every time I see someone carrying a guitar through security like it's thier security blanket, I want to grab and smash it into toothpicks. And I say this as someone who owns/plays a couple myself.

If you can afford a ticket, you can afford to buy a hard case and check the damned thing, you hippy wannabees.

[Fly3]

Like Jackharr, I am a retired pilot and I now avoid the hassle of airport security by traveling by coach as I have the time and it's a pleasure. Haven't come across a single numpty yet!

[MagnusP]

PukinDog, a hard case and checkin led to a friend arriving in the UK from New York and collecting a hard case. That's it; no $5000 guitar, just the case.

Point taken about the strings, but what next? Shoelaces?

[PENKO]

Ferry crossings are fine, until the customs officers decide to strip search your car. Makes airport security look like childsplay!:E

[PURPLE PITOT]

In the case of an emergency, you would be gratefull for a guitar in the cabin. Or a nun, or better still, both!

[blind pew]

Bfraser you were lucky!
My daughter gave me a badger shaving brush complete with a tub of shaving soap - the soap was deemed a threat and converscated.
Wife stopped me suggesting that I could use the brush as a weapon and tickle the crew to death.
Roll on the revolution.

[Avionker]

It's also very handy for smashing a mirror in an aircraft lav and a piece of duct tape for fixing a shard to the battery would make a very nasty weapon.

And these mirrors are made of what material do you think?

[Takeoff53]

I follow this thread now and then and sometimes a little amused. THe security level at airports is just stuppid and I cannot understand the pax accepting the whole thing.

But why is this concentratetd on the airline industry only? Are terrorists stupid? Why not bomb a train with 400 passengers or destroy the rails on a high speed link? Well, it's not my idea to give some advice, I just want to point out how different security is at the airline industry and a mass transport system which carries much more people world wide every day.

The answer is simple: The whole railway transport would brake down in a snap as it is absolutely not possible to do the same checks at all railway stations worldwide. But this shows how ridiculous all the measurements at airports are.

[2EggOmelette]

Why? Because some one must be the scape goat. Remember, its the 21st century! someone must be to blame, and certainly not ourselves! Ergo, the powers that be must pick (seemingly at random, although to be fair I have not seen a train driven through two huge buildings killing 3000 innocent lives yet) an industry to implement over stringent regulations upon. You must remember a few points, there are boot loads of train stations world wide, not so many airports, Airport security on all train stations would be 'infeasible' at the least. Plus! In doing so, they create a new industry out of an industry that is in a huge state of growth already. If there is money to be made, you bet someone will try to do it. Politicians are not going to complain, as it supplies jobs, always a sure winner for votes.
I do have a question though, for those nautically minded and experienced. Do cruise ships go through the same type of thing? And what's security like for those HUGE butane tankers etc?

[PukinDog]

MagnusP

PukinDog, a hard case and checkin led to a friend arriving in the UK from New York and collecting a hard case. That's it; no $5000 guitar, just the
case.

Point taken about the strings, but what next? Shoelaces?


Oh, the strings are merely the best excuse to stop the nonsense that guitars are somehow special items that don't need to adhere to the size requirement for carry-ons everyone else is expected to live by. And since every or extra checked bag(s) are routinely subject to an additional fee now and there's incentive to carry as much on as possible, it only doubles the annoyance that there is an unofficial exemption being played out.

Bad luck for your friend to be targeted by a thief, but guitars and other musical intstruments are no more subject to theft than other expensive items checked in dedicated cases (such as firearms, sporting equipment, art). Anything over the standard payout value should be insured, and very expensive items are better shipped by dedicated courier who's primary business is to keep track of and deliver the item.

I refuse to accept that guitars deserve a special size-exemption. I don't, for example, see trombone players using this tactic and taking up the bin space of 2, and a trombone player is most likely a serious musician unlike every yahoo who pretends they can play guitar.

Now that I think about it, perhaps I'll simply stuff one of my guitar cases with clothes and sundry items next time I pax and carry it on in addition to a computer bag and see how that works out for me.

[mathers_wales_uk]

Regardless of whether or not the current legislation is right or wrong one of the main factors is the lack of consitsncy of how these legislations are being enforced which can make it very confusing for operational crew.

Individual airports even within the UK interoperate the regulations differently and operate different procedures although the Department for Transport are the body ensuring the enforcement of these regulations.

The inconsistency is what generates the comments and the frustration from the crews which can pass through several staff searches of various airports within the UK, Europe or Worldwide throughout the week and certainly on an annual basis.

Security is paramount and nobody can deny this however there are basic issues and flaws in the whole system. How all airport ID's have not been linked up to a single database which is easily accesible to security by all UK airports.

The paperwork envovled for a non based personel needing to attend restricted areas possibly for maintenance etc can take up to 30 mins to complete and said person still requires an escort. Surely a single database would solve this.

Regulations should not be open to individual airports/companies interpretation and no matter what airport within the UK you travel through you should expect the same searches/procedures.

It is also strange how UK also has a more stringent security regulation in comparison to individual countries within the European Union. This causes nothing but inconvenience when it comes to transit flights within the UK from even EU contries especially if passengers are joining this flight.

No consideration is taken to staff who have to work airside who simply may not be able to afford the high prices of soft drinks in the airside shops as this amounts to a lot of money (£1.80 a bottle) over a 12 hour shift. Certain canned foods that may contain sauce are also banned. Spagghetti, Beans, Soup are also banned substances. Yes you can elect to eat something with no sauce but surely staff have a right to select what they want to eat?

How come it is possible to take a crate of cans or bottles with catering to be sold in an airside shop that was delivered by a a person presenting ID or a passport with no background check on a visitor pass? Why are they deemed less of a risk than somone who has passed a CRC check and holds a valid airport ID with a single drink or a tin of soup?

Is health compromised of those that have to work in direct sunlight for long periods at risk since staff may face skin cancer for the lack of being able to bring a bottle of sun tan lotion on site? Maybe the manufacturers are now providing compliant tubes but have not looked to be perfectly honest.

Note: The security to meet politicians in official government buildings are less stringent from past experiences.

[B Fraser]

And these mirrors are made of what material do you think?

To be honest, I've never tried breaking one but I'll happily stand corrected if they are shatter proof polycarbonate or similar. My point was that it is very easy to fashion a weapon from what is already on board. I guess Mr average terrorist is a bright chap and those training camps were not disbanded the moment they found out that we were insisting on polythene bags and confiscating nail clippers. Instead of using the mirror in the loo, they can smash the litre bottle of Gordons that was bought airside. It's a nice shade of green too so it will match their corporate colours.

It's time for profiling passengers if only our politicians would "grow a pair" and get serious on security.

[A and C]

This issue is not about security it is about protecting the reputations of the politicians from the media when the a terrorist act happens, it lets them stand up infront of the camera's and say they had taken appropriate action.

Meanwhile in this atmosphere of paranoia a bunch of chancer's who twenty years ago would have been selling double glazing have picked up the security issue, ramped up the paranoia a few notches and made a lot of money employing bottom grade staff and charging premium prices using the added value of the security tag as justification for this profiteering.

Add airport managers who have been emerssed in the elf & safety culture and you have the recipe for the banning of baked beans and other such stupidity in the interests of national security.

The fact is we need security but the big problem for the aviation industry is how to implement a security program without the current bunch of security parasites being involved, you can bet that any attempt to remove them and replace them a realistic system will be resisted tooth & nail as they see the easy money slipping from their grasp.