But Don, what about the caterers and their truck load of galley carts? What about the engineers and their van load of implements? What about the Ground staff that bring bits of paper the the aeroplane?

If, and I say IF the security measures imposed on us actually did something, I could understand. As it is, all they do is make the Govt look like they're doing something, when in fact their just pandering to the wider communities xenophobic fears and insecurities.

I'm buggered if I can understand why I can't go see the POCO and get a weather update, without having to be re-screened! I'm damned if I can understand why I never, ever, have to take my boots off at one port, or rarely at others, but at a few, have to take them off almost all the time.

Just wait till the next aviation/economic downturn comes, and see how much worse it is for the impost of the expense of the so called security. :mad:

That's fine as far as it goes, but what is annoying me is the stupidity of the 'security' checks.

Forcing travellers to use a transparent plastic bag for their carry-on liquids does make the inspectors job easier, but., I believe that that portion of aviation security will actually be reduced, because the inspectors will probably now just inspect the contents of containers based on the labels/logos of those containers.
Apart from the traveller humiliation angle, what is the actual security benefit of the transparent bags ?

Don
If you believe that the security applied to commercial aircraft in Australia is such that it would be difficult for someone to do harm, then you are naive.
There are holes you could literally drive a bus through and to suggest that the screening of crews actually adds to the security of the aircraft is silly.
We "carp" on about it because it is stupid and actually impedes air safety. How many pilots have been through screening and almost been stripped to their undies and then had to go and fly an aeroplane. The stress caused by the screening actually imposes a greater risk to the safety of that aircraft than any percieved terrorist threat.
To add insult to injury we dont screen train pax or vehicles driving through our major cities.
It only takes a look at the deaths caused in Iraq by IED's placed in vehicles and exploded in crowded urban areas to see that the threat is not in aeroplanes.

Biggles and Clarrie have just identified some of the the real issues. Banging on about crew checks will not solve anything. Someone needs to sit down with a clean sheet of paper and start all over again, asking questions each step along the way. Instead of following the world, the Australian authorities really should develop a sensible and pragmatic solution that applies all over the country in a uniformly (no pun intended!) and consistent manner. I too am perplexed by the inconsistent application of the requirements and, in some instances, the sheer stupidity of them. That they are enforced by people, some of whom being from the bottom of the gene pool, with little training, initiative or personality doesn't help very much either. Some "people" issues could & should be immediately addressed.

DhD, getting so stressed is a waste of time and energy. Rules are rules no matter what one thinks so one just has to go with the flow. I know it's hard but the dummies doing the checks are just doing as they are told - don't shoot the messenger. As I suggest, the issue is much bigger than crew checks (and anything else belonging crew!!).

Don
Tech crew ARE exempt from the gels and liquids requirement in the UK and Europe (someone correct me if I'm wrong), so why not here?
Why carp on? Because we deal with this stuff day in, day out whenever we are at work, not like Joe Pax who travels maybe once a week or less.
I submit willingly to the "explosives residue" test every time I pax into SYD (maybe I just look suspicious or something, but I seem to be nabbed every time), but I'm in civvies so don't expect special treatment. When I'm donned in full monkey suit however, with all the required passes and IDs, I expect to be treated with a modicum of dignity, and respected for my position. As has been stated earlier, if I wanted to do something subversive, it would not be with my toiletries, and would surely have a far more newsworthy result.
I'm trusted enough with 70 tonnes of people and fuel to be locked into the control compartment, so why would I possibly be trying to make an IED out of toothpaste?
The comment about all the other airside staff who are not screened at all is also valid. There are people with practically unlimited access to aircraft with criminal records that would make your hair curl...FACT.
It is not about being elitist, it is about being practical and sensible.
And just the other day, a screened passenger was most concerned about the large hunting knife he had inadvertently brought on board.....through all the metal detectors etc. It was safely secured for him for the remainder of the flight, and returned on arrival. Appropriate paperwork was filed questioning the effectiveness of screening, but nothing will change. Is it just windowdressing? Effectively yes. There are many ways to get things onto aircraft and I'm not going to describe them here, but it is easier than many (not in the industry) would believe.

Dear topend3
then why did they include in the Aviation Security Act a dispensation for "Tools of the trade" even if that tool of the trade is "prohibited item".
I would have thought a pencil, a biro, a ruler ,a logbook etc etc could all be construed as tools of the trade for pilots.

Distracted Cockroach, Yes in the UK and USA (which I have learned now already has the 100ml / 1litre limit and al in a plastic bag) operating aircrew are not required to comply with this. I can take my 160g toothpaste and 200 ml moisturizer or whatever and am not required to put them in a plastic bag or seperate them at all. They security just confirm the bags from a pilot or cabin crew member and they let you go.

I guess what I am wondering and no one seems to know yet is whether or not we will be exempt from this in Australia (exempt from the liquid rule not security screeening) My hunch is they are going to make us do it here, but no one seems to know , they are starting in a couple of weeks.. Vaile said the requirements are to " put us in line with UK/USA security rules" That means I hope that we wont have the liquid problem as aircrew but.. no one really knows.:confused:

It is harder to swallow these restrictions when the reason for them didn't exist. The ringleader of the trans-atlantic liquid bomb plot has been cleared of all terrorism charges.

No passports, no plane tickets, no bombs, no plot.

The restrictions are a convenient reminder that there are terrorists around every corner.

Selac66...

That is exactly the problem we face in counter terrorism.We are in the main playing to a set of rules and they are not...

In life we are faced with a number of rules and regulations designed to stop the minority.Do any of the crew here that are harping on about the ignomy of having to go through security checks with normal people have any problems being stopped by a RBT unit?

Not all people drink and drive but all of us have had to stop our journey and have to go through the process of breath analysis.

It is true that we should start with a clean sheet as far as airport security is concerned and close the gaps that you could drive a bus through but at the end of the day is it that much to put up with.

I must say that what I read and hear of all the current security screening practices that have been reported on these pages do make me curious.
I wonder how these practices would have dealt with someone like me in one of my previous occupations of twenty years ago, on a Seismic Survey Crew, ie that of a 'Seismic Preloader.'

In short, I made up multiple explosive charges to put down deep shot holes, working with explosives and elictrically fired detonators,the explosive being mainly anzomex 'A' boosters; a small cylindrical shaped 50/50 mixture of PETN and TNT. Approximately three 'A' boosters would have been (very roughly) equivalent in blast force to a stick of Gelignite. These boosters came in boxes of 600. In my work conditions of five or six weeks on to ten days off I would use about four to five boxes a tour.

One of the side effects of being in contact with this type of explosive was that my body would absorb some of the nitro chemicals; ie my fingernails would turn an orange/yellow, very similar to the effect of a chain smoker. Indeed the visual effect was considered identical! Also, the skin on the back of my hands would turn a similar colour.

If I had to go through a security check as is the current practice, and I was subjected to the explosives residue check I think all fellow Ppruners would know the likely outcome!! :suspect: :uhoh:

At the time as was the requirement I carried my Blasters permit with me on travelling to and from the crew but given the current hysteria (and I used that term advisedly) I wonder if these days I would present somewhat of 'a problem!':eek:

lowerlobe,

I think I see the point you are making. My call is for a proportional response. Using your DUI example, in Victoria in 2002, 31% of road driver/rider fatalities were found to have a BAC of 0.05% or greater. A large minority doing the wrong thing justifies a vigorous RBT campaign which few people could argue with.

Compare this with the liquids policing which is based on a plot which appears did not exist. Policing to detect/deter a minority of 0%.

My own comparison:
8 Mar 94 Heathrow mortared by IRA. Ops continued.
10 Mar 94 Heathrow mortared by IRA. Southern runway closed.
13 Mar 94 Heathrow mortared by IRA. Airport closed for two hours.

Three attacks over six days with minimum disruption because the policy was ‘we aren’t going to let them get the better of us’.

Same airport 12 years later sees it descend into chaos for a week based on a plot which Tony Blair had known about for months and which appears to be without substance. This suggests a policy of ‘keep the public afraid’.

Selac66...I know what you mean.One of the problems we have is the politician.They have two agenda's and both are linked.

The first is that they need to be seen to be doing something.

The second is that they want to be re-elected.

I agree that they want to continue this atmosphere of fear.The end justifies the means and that is to get re-elected.

However as far as your figures go with drink driving I’m not so sure. There might be 31% of road fatalities with a BAC of .05% or greater however, how many people use the roads in comparison to these figures. Figures in NSW show that the fatality rate is .8 per 100 million vehicle km’s.

Therefore the number of people driving compared to the number of fatalities is small and therefore I don’t think you could say that they are the large minority.

As far as the alleged liquid bomb makers in the UK how do you know they were not in fact doing that? You cannot say that there is 0% just because they did not carry out the act.

As far as I remember the police did know about the intention or creation of bombs and were content to watch until they had sufficient evidence. However someone in the security forces blinked when one the them disappeared. The problem may be not that they are innocent but that you cannot establish a guilty case in a court of law.

Imagine a hypothetical situation here. Imagine if you could go back in time and warn the FBI or whoever of the 9/11 hijackers acts. You convince the authorities that an act of terror is about to happen.

The hijackers are watched and are arrested in the transit area moments before boarding and after passing through security and found to have box cutters.They are not carrying any bombs or any other device in the traditional sense of hijacking.

Your case would be thrown out of court because they have not carried out any act of aggression other than carrying box cutters which they would inevitably have an excuse for and they would walk free.

Just because you cannot prove guilt in a court of law does not mean they are innocent and did not have intent to carry out an act of terrorism.

It's easy for some here to say that aircraft are not the likely targets anymore and I hope your right.However perhaps that is because of the security measures we have in place.They might not be full proof and we certainly need to fix that but you cannot argue that there has not been a major aircraft event such as 9/11 since.

As I said we are playing to a set of rules and the terrorists are not.

I agree with most posters who say the new security screening is tiresome and in some cases offensive. The thing we must all keep in mind though is who we are trying to protect ourselves from. We are dealing with an evolving, intelligent enemy. They are contsantly figuring out new ways to kill us. This means our screening and security will also be evolving to meet this threat. We won't always get it right, we won't be efficient and we won't be comfortable. Our success will come from a lack of incidents, something that is hard to measure.


The only thing we can hope for is that our security and screening processes neaten up over time so they deal with the ever changing threat and make air travel easy again. For those that are compaining about being pulled up, try being me who looks ethnic. I get the spectro every time as well as the uneasy glances from my fellow passengers who are just waiting for the allah akbar scream. In this modern climate of fear it's hard being a monobrow.

The fact remains that crew could be strip searched at the security point, walk to the aircraft stark bollock naked and be forced to remain that way all through their work day and that would have no effect on the ability of a subversive psyco 'pilot' to carry out his evil intent.

We are locked behind a security door and have the ultimate weapon at our finger tips...the aircraft.

Don to suggest we should 'meekly submit' to this abject stupidity is completely WRONG. We should be objecting in the strongest possible terms...right up to industrial action if necesary.

For a terrorist pilot to try and carry on some sort of explosive in his shampoo would be completely counter productive and risk being caught...instead he can just walk on carrying NOTHING and have absolutely NO FEAR of being caught before he makes it to the controls of a 300000lb bomb.

To suggest someone could copy an ID and steal a uniform and pretend to be a crew member is just Hollywood fantasy BS...he would be found out before the aircraft even pushed back off stand because of his complete lack of knowledge of company SOPs...assuming the crew didn't bat an eyelid at someone completely unknown to any of them just turning up.

This stupidity needs to be fought and fought hard...because it is so stupid that it merely serves to illuminate how completely clueless the people in charge are.:mad:

Chuck, as usual spot on :ok:

Quote from Chimbu "We should be objecting in the strongest possible terms...right up to industrial action if necesary".........

You have got to be kidding ...

That would only confirm what Darth has been saying about crew ....

lowerlobe,

Comparing like with like. I didn’t say 0.8 deaths per 100 million vehicle kms was a large minority. I said that 31% of deaths to DUI was a large minority. To summarise;

Case for RBT:

Percentage of deaths to DUI 31%
Deaths per 100m vkm 0.8
Offenders not caught your guess

Case for liquid screening:

Percentage of airline deaths from liquid bombs 0%
Liquid bomb deaths per 100m vkm 0
Offenders not caught 0

Now strengthening cockpit doors has a precedent and I can come at taking my shoes off, but all the flap over a bunch of amateurs with a big idea but no passports, no tickets and no bombs is nothing but political manipulation of the traveling public. I would suggest that aircraft remain a likely target but that they will also continue to be used as a means of keeping the ‘war on terror’ myth bubbling along.

‘They might not be full proof and we certainly need to fix that but you cannot argue that there has not been a major aircraft event such as 9/11 since.’

What event was that?

Selac66...

Facts are facts and that is that the number of deaths on roads compared to the number of people driving is small however we still have to accept RBT as a means of lowering that rate even further...The figures do not suggest that 30% of drivers would test greater than .05% BAC.

I thought my example was clear enough but the fact that the alleged bomb makers in LHR did not have passports or tickets does not mean they did not have them but the police did not find them..therefore they were found not guilty

The event I was referring to was 9/11 attacks..

I am not talking about the invasion of Iraq however do you think that the war on terror is a myth?

ll,

We may have squeezed enough out of the DUI analogy, but, with limited police resources, concentrating on the contributor to a third of road deaths could probably be justified.

The police did not find their passports? I hadn't checked into that.

Commenting on the war on terror will only lead to censorship/banning. You think that the US wasn't warned? Pm me if you're interested.

Currently there is no exemption for crew. And I can't see why one would be introduced.

Along with restrictions on LAGs there will also be the introduction of random frisk searches. No one seems to have mentioned this and I would have thought that this would be more intrusive than having to show what sort of toothpaste you use.