View Full Version : Better than the rest of us? (Number two)
Compylot
15th Nov 2017, 09:53
Can anyone confirm that a Captain refused to submit to an explosives trace detection test going through security at one of our major airports this week, causing a scene and eventual delay of the service?
If it's true - what is wrong with these people? Everyone knows it's just window dressing yet we all get on and do it. So many people these days believe that the world revolves around them :rolleyes:
I do know that some time ago a pilot failed the explosive residue test conducted before a pre-curfew departure in Sydney. The pilot was stood-down leaving insufficient crew to operate the flight. A standby pilot would not have arrived before curfew thus it appeared that the flight would be cancelled and passengers sent to hotels for the night.
As I understand it, common sense prevailed and the flight departed that evening.:rolleyes:
IsDon
15th Nov 2017, 21:15
Without knowing the specific circumstances here it’s impossible to know if the Captain’s response was reasonable or not. To vilify him without this knowledge is unfair.
I’ve been clearly targeted by the ETD screeners on more than one occasion. Those occasions are few and far between admittedly. More often than not it’s just part of a “random and continuous” process as the regulation directs. I comply realising the guy is just doing his job. One I certainly wouldn’t want.
When it is clear crew are being targeted, I believe we all share the responsibility to highlight the issue. If that causes a delay so be it. Targeting crew is against the regulation and diminishes the effectiveness of the process as crew are a low risk group to begin with. While the crew member concerned is being screened, 3-4 others pass through security unscreened.
Any standard you walk past is a standard you accept.
SandyPalms
15th Nov 2017, 21:32
I don't feel I have ever been targeted as crew, anywhere. It's usually just the next person to walk past.
It takes 15 seconds, and usually the screener has a quick chat. Some of them are a bit over the top, but generally they are fair people.
Doesn't change the fact that it is a total waste of time to perform this test on flight crew. But I believe most of them know how stupid it is and treat it with the seriousness it deeserves.
Derfred
15th Nov 2017, 22:29
crew are a low risk group
What some pilots don't seem to understand is that while pilots are a low risk group, terrorists dressed as pilots are a high risk group. Would you trust a screener to be able to tell the difference?
If anyone thinks they are being targeted, I call bull****. Get over it.
AerocatS2A
15th Nov 2017, 22:36
I think it’s probably the case that people who look easy going might get targeted. I find the easiest way to get the explosives test is to look at the screener and smile. I’m basically saying, “g’day mate, I know your job is **** and you’re bored, wave your tester over my bag and clothes if you want, it’s all cool.” If I particularly want to avoid screening I just stare straight ahead and walk assertively past as though I have things to do and places to be. It doesn’t always work but I think it sways your chances one way or the other. This is all out of uniform.
One thing that has amused me lately while in uniform is having the screener test the entire crew with one swab. It might be more efficient and get us all through more quickly, but if it comes up positive you’re stuck with all of us and the company possibly has to replace the entire crew while it’s sorted out.
IsDon
15th Nov 2017, 22:53
If anyone thinks they are being targeted, I call bull****. Get over it.
Not so long ago, it was clear to everyone in uniform that crew were being targeted in Perth.
An incident, that occurred to me personally (which I won’t elaborate on) was sufficient to highlight that fact.
The upshot was a high level pow wow from QANTAS security, government departments, Perth airport and the contractor concerned. The contractors own records proved that your chances of being screened as a crew member in uniform were 1 in 3, while the chances of being screened as a punter across the rest of the network were 1 in 7.
Clearly crew were being targeted, and the contractor concerned admitted it. The reason given was that Perth had a high concentration of FIFO mine workers who had a high rate of positives on the ETD scan. Also the miners were, as a general rule, a belligerent bunch.
The contractor thought it reasonable to take the path of least resistance and target crew who were generally compliant and were almost always negative tests.
So call bullsh1t if you like. You would be wrong.
The reason given was that Perth had a high concentration of FIFO mine workers who had a high rate of positives on the ETD scan. Also the miners were, as a general rule, a belligerent bunch.
I could certainly see that happening. The use of the electronic randomiser selection should now remove any question of being deliberately targeted. Unless of course you go through at a quiet time then your a monty to be rubbed up by their grubby little swabbing device.
IsDon
15th Nov 2017, 23:24
I could certainly see that happening. The use of the electronic randomiser selection should now remove any question of being deliberately targeted. Unless of course you go through at a quiet time then your a monty to be rubbed up by their grubby little swabbing device.
That’s true. My incident was some time ago, before the randomiser came in.
SandyPalms
15th Nov 2017, 23:51
the randomisers seem to be gone.
Pettibone
15th Nov 2017, 23:58
Has randomiser use been randomised?
Rated De
16th Nov 2017, 00:13
Has randomiser use been randomised?
Outsourced?
The contractor thought it reasonable to take the path of least resistance and target crew who were generally compliant and were almost always negative tests.
Kayfabe the lot of it.
halas
16th Nov 2017, 03:24
All crew get ETD tested in Amsterdam. Six at a time.
halas
Octane
16th Nov 2017, 08:00
Are crew targeted? I don't know but...
My brother was behind a guy who got pulled up by security because he was carrying sunscreen that was labelled 110mL, 10mL over (why a company would produce a 110mL product is beyond me). After a warning, he was allowed to proceed with his sunscreen. My brother had exactly the same sunscreen but this time security said bad luck, I'm confiscating it!
Hang on brother protested, you just let that guy away with, it's exactly the same stuff! "Too bad" was the response..
Right, said brother. Call your manager, there's been a breech of security, you let someone through with 110mL, I saw it!
He promptly got his sunscreen back.
Brother is a Captain, FO was behind him...
Ixixly
16th Nov 2017, 08:14
Why don't they all use the Randomisers? Only place I still seem to notice them being used is Newcastle Airport these days?
Traffic_Is_Er_Was
16th Nov 2017, 08:54
Because I believe it is now supposed to be random and continuous. As soon as one person's testing is complete, take the next available person. The randomness is just built into that, because if you're next, you're next. If people present at the ETD at a rate slow enough that everyone can get tested, then so be it.
Captain Nomad
16th Nov 2017, 10:33
It never ceases to amaze me how often the 'random' test picks me. I reckon I have about a 95% rate of being selected every time I go through security - I must look dodgy! :} (and that's travelling out of uniform through a variety of domestic ports also). I've tried the 'don't look at them and be in a hurry' and it doesn't seem to work for me...!
peuce
16th Nov 2017, 21:48
Well Captain, perhaps you're one of the passengers who insist on waiting in the cafe till the aircraft door is about to close before going through security and complaining that " I always get picked". If you're the only one around....of course you get picked....or, perhaps you're on the list !
So I got tested, failed, and got tested again, failed. Then I was put on my way to go fly the aircraft.
Anyone else been tested and failed ? others I have spoken to just get sent on their way. Seems like a pointless exercise to scam more money out of airlines, airport users, and passengers and put it into “security” company coffers.
peuce
17th Nov 2017, 00:51
Perhaps some re-ed-ucation is in order....
If you return a positive result, the machine is saying it thinks it smelt something interesting there...let me have another go.
If you then return a negative on the second test, a third test is done. If its also a negative, you're on your way.
If you return a positive on either the second or third test, then you will be subject to secondary screening...that is...a frisk search and a search of your carry on luggage...if you agree.
As the powers that be know, there are many innocuous causes of a positive reading. Therefore, the secondary screening is to ensure that you are not carrying "anything" that may have caused the positive return.
If nothing dastardly is found during secondary screening, it is assumed that your positive return was caused by one of those innocuous causes....and you are on your way.
Simple risk management practices to me......
Captain Nomad
17th Nov 2017, 00:56
Well Captain, perhaps you're one of the passengers who insist on waiting in the cafe till the aircraft door is about to close before going through security and complaining that " I always get picked". If you're the only one around....of course you get picked....or, perhaps you're on the list !
Nope, not me. I'm usually one of those standing up waiting at the gate to board before it opens...
mrdeux
18th Nov 2017, 05:44
Walk up to them and set your bags down to be screened, whether they call you or not. You've just defeated the random factor...
AileronsNeutral
18th Nov 2017, 07:18
Going through Gold Coast domestic security a few months ago skipper and I were approached by screener and asked which one of us wanted to be selected for a "random" explosive test....
Kelly Slater
18th Nov 2017, 21:19
Did the contractor not complying with random screening rules lose the contract?
Airport worker suspended for screening Julie Bishop in breach of 'random check' rules (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/airport-worker-suspended-for-screening-julie-bishop-in-breach-of-random-check-rules-20151217-glpqcj.html)
bolthead
19th Nov 2017, 01:18
Went through Oslo Airport security recently, and whoa!!!, why can't other airports be like this? Mind you, it would cost quite a few bucks.
You get your own little 'cubicle' to take as long as you like to get your stuff sorted. A ready supply of empty trays on a conveyor under your table, and then you push them forward on to the conveyor system.
Once scanned the system diverts a randomly selected bag for more checking like points on a railway track.
peuce
19th Nov 2017, 04:36
Walk up to them and set your bags down to be screened, whether they call you or not. You've just defeated the random factor...
Not so. Random in this case means not selected by profile.... colour, creed, job....etc, etc
If you plonk your stuff down, the Screening Officer hasn't profiled you...you've randomly presented him with a customer. Jobs done....thanks very much.
AerialPerspective
19th Nov 2017, 14:57
Nope, not me. I'm usually one of those standing up waiting at the gate to board before it opens...
Actually, I have to say, I worked on the ground for about 18 months and EVERY time I went through security they would pick me... it was supposed to be random but the 'random' in this case is some moron who probably wouldn't know if their arse was on fire just picking people they don't think will complain.
I eventually said to them "I know you have to do this, you also know I get picked every time I walk through here... I'm fine with being picked but how random is this if all you ever pick is someone with an ASIC every 2nd or 3rd person... just to prove no one's exempt. The fact is I used to see other staff selected as well, more often than not. It's not totally random and the number of staff that I saw selected was way out of proportion with their percentage of the overall 'population' utilising the terminal.
Two occasions I had cause to question the randomness of the selection:
First at Brisbane domestic where whilst in civilian attire in conversation after being selected I was told "you can easily avoid this. Just follow the crew through. We always get them." (That was then the subject of a Security report.)
Secondly a neighbour at our commuter place in Sydney joined the airport security team some years ago. In his induction he was told "Always check the crew. They can't complain or they'll get sacked!" He, being a reasonable sort of bloke, lasted about 6 weeks in the job before he got sick of being constantly held responsible for the whole security process.
A Squared
19th Nov 2017, 22:05
Two occasions I had cause to question the randomness of the selection:
First at Brisbane domestic where whilst in civilian attire in conversation after being selected I was told "you can easily avoid this. Just follow the crew through. We always get them." (That was then the subject of a Security report.)
So, your security report resulted in them being more careful about who they mention their unofficial policies to, then.
So, your security report resulted in them being more careful about who they mention their unofficial policies to, then.
Probably!:ok:
I wasn't given the courtesy of a response.:rolleyes: