CX Pilot arrested at Heathrow for possession of knives
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Epsomdog
Quote:
Originally Posted by deptrai
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for people to consider facts of a particular incident, as a long as the laws/rules are silly.
Flight attendants and passengers keep getting injured by heavy hand luggage falling out of overhead bins. This is a real, not an imaginary threat. Now what if someone intentionally swings their 15 kilo hardshell hand luggage at your head? Then there are the hundreds of glass bottles pax are carrying. Oxygen tanks and fire extinguishers could also make formidable weapons. The on-board cutlery, chopsticks, fire axes, etc etc, it's all well known. I'm not saying we should ban all that, just like I think it's (barely) fair to allow engineers on duty around the aircraft to have access to a spanner. How about if some malicious terrorist fuel truck driver would speed out onto a runway in just the wrong moment...can you imagine the disaster? But according to current rules, some yoghurt carried by a pilot is getting more attention. How many have actually been hurt by a yoghurt? Let's just face it, there are nonsensical elements in the ongoing "security charade". Knives or whatever, I put up with it and do my best to comply...but there is room for improvement, and I think that is a more interesting debate, in general, than to consider the facts of some particular case where someone got caught carrying something he/she shouldn't. Yawn.
I think this thread is going round in circles!
It seems like a fairly simple dilemma.
1. Do we need security rules and restrictions?
Assuming the answer is yes, then....
2. Should those rules and restrictions apply to everyone, equally?
My view is most certainly, YES to both! If you allow special exemptions then you create a loophole or weakness that can be exploited by any would be terrorist!
Originally Posted by deptrai
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for people to consider facts of a particular incident, as a long as the laws/rules are silly.
Flight attendants and passengers keep getting injured by heavy hand luggage falling out of overhead bins. This is a real, not an imaginary threat. Now what if someone intentionally swings their 15 kilo hardshell hand luggage at your head? Then there are the hundreds of glass bottles pax are carrying. Oxygen tanks and fire extinguishers could also make formidable weapons. The on-board cutlery, chopsticks, fire axes, etc etc, it's all well known. I'm not saying we should ban all that, just like I think it's (barely) fair to allow engineers on duty around the aircraft to have access to a spanner. How about if some malicious terrorist fuel truck driver would speed out onto a runway in just the wrong moment...can you imagine the disaster? But according to current rules, some yoghurt carried by a pilot is getting more attention. How many have actually been hurt by a yoghurt? Let's just face it, there are nonsensical elements in the ongoing "security charade". Knives or whatever, I put up with it and do my best to comply...but there is room for improvement, and I think that is a more interesting debate, in general, than to consider the facts of some particular case where someone got caught carrying something he/she shouldn't. Yawn.
I think this thread is going round in circles!
It seems like a fairly simple dilemma.
1. Do we need security rules and restrictions?
Assuming the answer is yes, then....
2. Should those rules and restrictions apply to everyone, equally?
My view is most certainly, YES to both! If you allow special exemptions then you create a loophole or weakness that can be exploited by any would be terrorist!
You're just another sheep that's been brainwashed by the 'Ones in Charge'.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
White Night
I've been at this aviation lark a long time, and I have to agree with you.
Do a basic check for guns and bombs, and that's it. Open the cockpit doors again. (it'll never happen, though: I've never seen a government agency or department "downsize").
Do a basic check for guns and bombs, and that's it. Open the cockpit doors again. (it'll never happen, though: I've never seen a government agency or department "downsize").
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Nr Aston Down, Cotswolds
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well MY view is NO.... In light of the qoute that YOU pasted! ANYONE can, at ANTIME, f*** up an airliner... I am sick of the security BS that I have to go through just to board MY aeroplane... I have potentially 250 tonnes of explosive in my fuel tanks; and I have to remove my belt at 'security'?
You're just another sheep that's been brainwashed by the 'Ones in Charge'.
You're just another sheep that's been brainwashed by the 'Ones in Charge'.
I'm afraid there will always be confrontations with security whilst there are attitudes such as these!
I appreciate you are free to express your opinion, as I am! (Time to bite my tongue, I think).
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few years back a cabin crew try to board the flight in Moscow with an AK47 air soft gun in her hand luggage.
I can just imagine what would have happened in London!
The Moscow security, after the initial panic, took the gun away and let her through.
I can just imagine what would have happened in London!
The Moscow security, after the initial panic, took the gun away and let her through.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. Do we need security rules and restrictions?
Assuming the answer is yes, then....
2. Should those rules and restrictions apply to everyone, equally?
My view is most certainly, YES to both! If you allow special exemptions then you create a loophole or weakness that can be exploited by any would be terrorist!
Assuming the answer is yes, then....
2. Should those rules and restrictions apply to everyone, equally?
My view is most certainly, YES to both! If you allow special exemptions then you create a loophole or weakness that can be exploited by any would be terrorist!
Further, the mindless focus on certain specific items is a distraction. Israel, which uses highly trained interrogators for airport security, is instead focusing on behavior. Ask people where they work, why they are travelling, why they are carrying certain items, assess if it makes sense, and watch for behavioral cues. For any individual, this "interview" can take anywhere from 15 seconds to several hours. Certain people who are deemed higher risk get more attention. Most pilots don't fall into this category, and can also easily be pre-screened.
Last edited by deptrai; 4th May 2015 at 08:41.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: All Over
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a pretty simple solution.
Use the resources to look for explosives.
Use the resources to profile, target behaviour and target terrorist related activities (and those who might have terrorist ties).
Accept the fact that someone is ALWAYS going to slip through the cracks at some point and have a real plan which is prepared for this eventuality.
Stop being silly about targeting objects which are no more or less dangerous than anything available on the aircraft. Box cutters and knives are no more suitable weapons than anything carried or able to be improvised on any aircraft.
And get away from the nanny state feel good solution of villifying tools.
Use the resources to look for explosives.
Use the resources to profile, target behaviour and target terrorist related activities (and those who might have terrorist ties).
Accept the fact that someone is ALWAYS going to slip through the cracks at some point and have a real plan which is prepared for this eventuality.
Stop being silly about targeting objects which are no more or less dangerous than anything available on the aircraft. Box cutters and knives are no more suitable weapons than anything carried or able to be improvised on any aircraft.
And get away from the nanny state feel good solution of villifying tools.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a daring and brilliant piece of undercover journalism, the daily fail once revealed the previously completely unknown fact that deadly swiss pocket knives are sold airside at Zurich Airport. "A 6cm toughened blade"!
These news reports about the CX pilot who got stopped just confirms to me there is a lot of hysteria, which only distracts from the real issue (security).
These news reports about the CX pilot who got stopped just confirms to me there is a lot of hysteria, which only distracts from the real issue (security).
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Krug departure, Merlot transition
Posts: 659
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mindless repeat searches of everyone in exactly the same way every time is not the best approach to security.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: on thin ice
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canis primis,
Exactly correct. The security at FRA has adopted an explosive tag/strip check for staff and crew. Baggage, belts and hands are swiped and then the tag is monitored for any explosives. Green = pass, Red = baggage scan.
Why the rest of the free world refuses to embrace and use technology is beyond me.
Swiss army knives sold airside? Try to pry open the cockpit door with a 6cm blade.
Mandi,
Soda
Exactly correct. The security at FRA has adopted an explosive tag/strip check for staff and crew. Baggage, belts and hands are swiped and then the tag is monitored for any explosives. Green = pass, Red = baggage scan.
Why the rest of the free world refuses to embrace and use technology is beyond me.
Swiss army knives sold airside? Try to pry open the cockpit door with a 6cm blade.
Mandi,
Soda
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Professional security at LHR.
Recently came out of LHR. Security did a great job, I thought...quick, professional and thorough! As crew, as long as we know our limits and allowances, they do their job accordingly!
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ethics and Values
Reading this to find out more about the "management" that we are presently negotiating with for our lives.
It doesn't look like ethics or values are words in their vocabulary.
Must read for everyone:
The 49ers II -The Rest of the Story - Kindle edition by John Warham. Professional & Technical Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com. The 49ers II -The Rest of the Story - Kindle edition by John Warham. Professional & Technical Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.
Found this thread on another page. Apologies for not making due reference to the author. Point being the following.
Reference to 'negotiating with for our lives'.i always thought that keeping knives etc off aircraft had a great deal to do with 'lives'? Funny how monetary gain, conditions and service etc, however justified warrant this kind of statement. Let's not go into ethics and values....... As PIC or FO you're entrusted and respected for your skills and professionalism. Demonstrate it by setting an example! It appears that the carriage of a prohibited article is not a problem as long as it's carried by a pilot, irrespective of the regulatory requirements. I'm certain almost all professional pilots would soon land their plane at the nearest airfield if they heard a pax had a knife in their cabin baggage at 35,000 feet. Or would they first seek clarification as to whether the pax was a pilot or not?
It doesn't look like ethics or values are words in their vocabulary.
Must read for everyone:
The 49ers II -The Rest of the Story - Kindle edition by John Warham. Professional & Technical Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com. The 49ers II -The Rest of the Story - Kindle edition by John Warham. Professional & Technical Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.
Found this thread on another page. Apologies for not making due reference to the author. Point being the following.
Reference to 'negotiating with for our lives'.i always thought that keeping knives etc off aircraft had a great deal to do with 'lives'? Funny how monetary gain, conditions and service etc, however justified warrant this kind of statement. Let's not go into ethics and values....... As PIC or FO you're entrusted and respected for your skills and professionalism. Demonstrate it by setting an example! It appears that the carriage of a prohibited article is not a problem as long as it's carried by a pilot, irrespective of the regulatory requirements. I'm certain almost all professional pilots would soon land their plane at the nearest airfield if they heard a pax had a knife in their cabin baggage at 35,000 feet. Or would they first seek clarification as to whether the pax was a pilot or not?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
deptrai
I'm not a professional pilot but FWIW I agree there is scope for discussion (and a review) of airport security procedures.
However, the facts of this incident remain of interest to me. In particular, what item(s) the pilot was carrying and why someone saw fit to arrest him, with the consequent inconvenience to 260+ passengers and the rest of the crew.
The impact of being arrested should not be under-estimated. For some people, it is a way of life. For the rest of us, it would be an alarming and worrying experience - whatever the eventual outcome.
pacific_sunrise
As crew?
In your Profile, you claim:
Current on all three? 
I can't help but wonder if you actually work in security. If my suspicions are ill-founded, I look forward to learning from your contributions to the technical threads. I won't hold my breath - in another forum (discussing security) you claim to be CC.
Tourettes_Guy
We?
Three posts since 2010, two of which are on this thread.
Why are you pretending to fly for Cathay?
(Assuming, of course, that pacific_sunrise and Tourettes_Guy are actually two different people.
)
but there is room for improvement, and I think that is a more interesting debate, in general, than to consider the facts of some particular case where someone got caught carrying something he/she shouldn't.
However, the facts of this incident remain of interest to me. In particular, what item(s) the pilot was carrying and why someone saw fit to arrest him, with the consequent inconvenience to 260+ passengers and the rest of the crew.
The impact of being arrested should not be under-estimated. For some people, it is a way of life. For the rest of us, it would be an alarming and worrying experience - whatever the eventual outcome.
pacific_sunrise
Recently came out of LHR. Security did a great job ..... As crew, as long as we know our limits and allowances, they do their job accordingly!
In your Profile, you claim:
Current a/c Type (Pilots only)
"Boeings..Airbus...Lockheed"
Occupation
"crew"
"Boeings..Airbus...Lockheed"
Occupation
"crew"
I can't help but wonder if you actually work in security. If my suspicions are ill-founded, I look forward to learning from your contributions to the technical threads. I won't hold my breath - in another forum (discussing security) you claim to be CC.
Tourettes_Guy
Reading this to find out more about the "management" that we are presently negotiating with for our lives.
Three posts since 2010, two of which are on this thread.
Why are you pretending to fly for Cathay?
(Assuming, of course, that pacific_sunrise and Tourettes_Guy are actually two different people.
)
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 6th May 2015 at 02:44.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer
Besides commenting on profiles, do you have anything else to say?
Thanks for the compliment! I am in Aviation and do take security and safety seriously, so guilty as charged!
As for Tourette's Guy, to answer your suspicion, no we are not the same person....he seems to know his stuff...
Besides commenting on profiles, do you have anything else to say?
Thanks for the compliment! I am in Aviation and do take security and safety seriously, so guilty as charged!
As for Tourette's Guy, to answer your suspicion, no we are not the same person....he seems to know his stuff...
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is somebody getting sensitive?
. Probably know as much about A/C operations as your goodself. Certainly know more about the various international conventions, regulatory compliance and safeguards intended to protect all who enjoy careers in aviation and the pax who allow us to work in this profession by trusting us with their lives.
I also learnt to read at a very early age and don't always feel the need to make unnecessary responses to some of these threads. Didn't know you had to log in every time. Maybe you might want to read a few more security regs, they do after all apply to pilots too. Fair comment me thinks, as I've never been stopped or lifted passing through a security check point. Maybe it's time to hibernate again.
. Probably know as much about A/C operations as your goodself. Certainly know more about the various international conventions, regulatory compliance and safeguards intended to protect all who enjoy careers in aviation and the pax who allow us to work in this profession by trusting us with their lives.I also learnt to read at a very early age and don't always feel the need to make unnecessary responses to some of these threads. Didn't know you had to log in every time. Maybe you might want to read a few more security regs, they do after all apply to pilots too. Fair comment me thinks, as I've never been stopped or lifted passing through a security check point. Maybe it's time to hibernate again.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Krug departure, Merlot transition
Posts: 659
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For us line folk who habitually tromp through security at least once a day, the bewildering differences in security requirements at different ports are already confusing. In some places ipad and laptop must come out for security, but not in others. In some, liquids must come out too. Even within the EU, in some states crews are actually exempt from the 100ml liquid limit, but not in others.
At one extreme, FRA is very user-friendly to crewmembers and as Sodapop says most times the walk through metal detector and suitcase X-ray is not even required, at the other extreme, well, there's LHR.
I'm pretty sure if you polled pilots worldwide you would see Heathrow close to the bottom.
I think Deptrai and Shep were on track with the way security should evolve. No need to go as far as the Americans who allow armed pilots on board perhaps, but I do like their known crewmember concept. If you can establish that the chap or chapess is indeed pilot X at company Y, and as such has been properly pre-screened as a reliable and responsible individual, then a different security criteria should apply. It's always a bit surreal when said pilot X gets nail clippers confiscated, or reprimanded like a child for forgetting a 50ml tube of toothpaste outside the infamous plastic baggie, and then goes on to fly a heavily-laden airliner over a major city.
The one-size-fits-all model of security simply makes no sense, is cost and time-consuming and should change. Won't hold my breath though.
At one extreme, FRA is very user-friendly to crewmembers and as Sodapop says most times the walk through metal detector and suitcase X-ray is not even required, at the other extreme, well, there's LHR.
I'm pretty sure if you polled pilots worldwide you would see Heathrow close to the bottom.I think Deptrai and Shep were on track with the way security should evolve. No need to go as far as the Americans who allow armed pilots on board perhaps, but I do like their known crewmember concept. If you can establish that the chap or chapess is indeed pilot X at company Y, and as such has been properly pre-screened as a reliable and responsible individual, then a different security criteria should apply. It's always a bit surreal when said pilot X gets nail clippers confiscated, or reprimanded like a child for forgetting a 50ml tube of toothpaste outside the infamous plastic baggie, and then goes on to fly a heavily-laden airliner over a major city.
The one-size-fits-all model of security simply makes no sense, is cost and time-consuming and should change. Won't hold my breath though.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VR-HFX
Yes, and only 13 minutes apart last time.
p_s
Not at the moment, thank you.
I didn't suggest otherwise. Many people are 'in aviation' in a wide variety of roles. Why not admit that yours is security?
BTW, you forgot to delete 'crew' when you amended your Profile.
T_G
If you mean those relating to security, I agree.
Or perhaps to stop pretending to be something you are not and use one username to offer your opinions as someone who works in the security field.
Yes, and only 13 minutes apart last time.
p_s
Not at the moment, thank you.
I am in Aviation
BTW, you forgot to delete 'crew' when you amended your Profile.
As for Tourette's Guy, to answer your suspicion, no we are not the same person....he seems to know his stuff...
T_G
Certainly know more about the various international conventions, regulatory compliance
Maybe it's time to hibernate again.