From Murray_NN Security Guard at LHR
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
From: Heathrow
Raw Data,
Its nice to hear from you again.
You are still the same arogant person as you were before.
If the death of six thousand people does not wake you up, then I cant think what will.
On the week before the attack I personally found 2 knives and a laser gun belonging to 3 different captains.
Who knows what they were there for?
Raw Data, for god's sake wake up and realise what has happened in the USA and just realise that we are here to enforce safety for you, for your pax and many more to mention.
I know much more about security than you think. I think its crazy not to search crews at all or to search them differently than paxs. Believe me we have saved lives at LHR.
Raw Data, I will not argue with you anymore because I think you are still the same person who cannot look beyond your own snobbish personality. Because you maybe a pilot, it does not automaticaly give you the right of being searched differently.
Who knows who was responsible for the attacks in usa. The hijackers could have hidden their weapons in the luggage of the crews. That is only a speculation but I hope that was not the case. With the sophistication of their planning who knows who brought the weapons on board? If any were used.
Take care RD.
Its nice to hear from you again.
You are still the same arogant person as you were before.
If the death of six thousand people does not wake you up, then I cant think what will.
On the week before the attack I personally found 2 knives and a laser gun belonging to 3 different captains.
Who knows what they were there for?
Raw Data, for god's sake wake up and realise what has happened in the USA and just realise that we are here to enforce safety for you, for your pax and many more to mention.
I know much more about security than you think. I think its crazy not to search crews at all or to search them differently than paxs. Believe me we have saved lives at LHR.
Raw Data, I will not argue with you anymore because I think you are still the same person who cannot look beyond your own snobbish personality. Because you maybe a pilot, it does not automaticaly give you the right of being searched differently.
Who knows who was responsible for the attacks in usa. The hijackers could have hidden their weapons in the luggage of the crews. That is only a speculation but I hope that was not the case. With the sophistication of their planning who knows who brought the weapons on board? If any were used.
Take care RD.
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
From: Camp X-Ray
Well I would suggest that the operating Captains were unlikely to be using the knives and laser guns in a hijacking attempt. There are plenty of devices on board I could use if I wanted to do that! Many of the current restrictions on flight crew are, quite frankly, petty. If I want to kill the other guy I wont do it with the two inch blade swiss army knife in my bag.
By all means lets x-ray crew bags, perhaps something has been concealed in them when we're not looking. Lets have a thorough check of IDs, because any muppet can get a pilots uniform and we don't want them airside. Lets not try to kid ourselves that operating crew are going to hijack their won aircraft.
If we want to stop this sort of thing happening again then the first thing we need is profiling of pax El Al style. That does far more to defeat the terrorist threat than some underpaid and often disinterested security guard looking for a tiny concealed weapon.
By all means lets x-ray crew bags, perhaps something has been concealed in them when we're not looking. Lets have a thorough check of IDs, because any muppet can get a pilots uniform and we don't want them airside. Lets not try to kid ourselves that operating crew are going to hijack their won aircraft.
If we want to stop this sort of thing happening again then the first thing we need is profiling of pax El Al style. That does far more to defeat the terrorist threat than some underpaid and often disinterested security guard looking for a tiny concealed weapon.
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
From: Englands newest City
Are you all barking mad. The tragic events of last week are not enough. The mindless drivel from some sections of the aircrew who seem to think themselves above the rest and should not be subject to the same rules as the rest of the people who go airside for whatever reason astounds me. Fake uniforms fake IDs are easily obtainable. Why do object to a little inconvenience for gods sake. OK the events of the last week would not have been prevented by the search of aircrew, but terrorists are very inventive persons and who knows what ruse they will use in future. Get real chaps. Any security measure is better than none.
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
From: NZ
ragspanner: if you had bothered to read what I wrote, you would have noticed that I made no mention of the (in)destructability of pressurised containers, only the denial of access to the flight deck.
I am happy to comply with any security requirements that have a point to them. Sadly, most of the stuff we have to endure is more about political correctness, arse-covering and small-mindedness, Murray here being a good example. As I said to him, if you can show me a good reason, I will happily comply.
Rustbucket732: Murray wants to be a pilot, but does not appear to have made a lot of progress... hence my remark. I have a lot of time for security personnel, but only when they have some intelligence.
Murray_NN: You just don't get it, do you? Did the terrorists need weapons to crash the aircraft? NO! Nor does ANY pilot, all a pilot has to do is point the nose at the ground and advance the thrust levers. What, therefore, does it matter if a pilot has a knife???
As usual, you simply spout your organisational line without offering any evidence at all that your views make any sense whatsoever (which they don't). The minute you offer some sensible reasons for what you advocate, I will happily embrace them... but as you can't, I won't.
Now, why don't you try answering the points I made to you? Or anyone else, if anyone actually HAS some answers...
I am happy to comply with any security requirements that have a point to them. Sadly, most of the stuff we have to endure is more about political correctness, arse-covering and small-mindedness, Murray here being a good example. As I said to him, if you can show me a good reason, I will happily comply.
Rustbucket732: Murray wants to be a pilot, but does not appear to have made a lot of progress... hence my remark. I have a lot of time for security personnel, but only when they have some intelligence.
Murray_NN: You just don't get it, do you? Did the terrorists need weapons to crash the aircraft? NO! Nor does ANY pilot, all a pilot has to do is point the nose at the ground and advance the thrust levers. What, therefore, does it matter if a pilot has a knife???
As usual, you simply spout your organisational line without offering any evidence at all that your views make any sense whatsoever (which they don't). The minute you offer some sensible reasons for what you advocate, I will happily embrace them... but as you can't, I won't.
Now, why don't you try answering the points I made to you? Or anyone else, if anyone actually HAS some answers...
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Guys, remember who the enemy is. Guards and pilots are on the same side in this war!
Lets take this debate back to basics. What we are talking about here is how to counter the threat of terrorist "sleepers" who may try to get jobs reqiring airside access.
The most appropriate means to counter this threat depends on the jobs people do.
First it must be recognised that there are some jobs in which it would be possible to hijack or destroy an aircraft using only the tools nescessary for that job.
The most obvious of these jobs is flight crew. I am legally responsible for a piece of machinery which has the potential to be "the equivilent of a weapon of mass destruction". If I were a terrorist sleeper I could crash a passenger jet on a city center tomorrow morning. If the F/O were not a confederate I would have to take him out, but for a determined terrorist that would not be too difficult even without carrying any "prohibited articles" in a flight bag. There might even be a way I could survive.
Other jobs in this category include firearms authorised police officers and maintainance engineers (for reasons I will not go into).
For such staff, the only defense is vetting: the authorities must obtain the highest possible assurance that these staff are not terrorists. It follows that all staff in this category must be subject to the most rigourous government positive vetting procedures. Perhaps also staff responsible for securing catering supplies and any staff who need to dirve a vehiecle from land to air side and who have access to aircraft (e.g tanker drivers) would also need to be in this category.
For positive vetted staff, there is little marginal value in body searches at validation points since such staff have the means to destroy an aircraft anyway. Putting bags on the x ray machine would still be useful for the owner's own benefit in case it had been tampered with. Valdation point control for positive vetted staff should concentrate on veryfying identity. Technology such as retinal scanning may be useful here.
Full positive vetting is however complex and costly. It can also be politically senstive in relation to equal opportunities legislation.
For ALL other airside staff who are not positive vetted, validation point control must concentrate on search.
In summary, we need a scheme in which the requirement to search staff depends on whether the staff member has positive vetted status. The requirement for positive vetting in turn depends on the job category.
Lets take this debate back to basics. What we are talking about here is how to counter the threat of terrorist "sleepers" who may try to get jobs reqiring airside access.
The most appropriate means to counter this threat depends on the jobs people do.
First it must be recognised that there are some jobs in which it would be possible to hijack or destroy an aircraft using only the tools nescessary for that job.
The most obvious of these jobs is flight crew. I am legally responsible for a piece of machinery which has the potential to be "the equivilent of a weapon of mass destruction". If I were a terrorist sleeper I could crash a passenger jet on a city center tomorrow morning. If the F/O were not a confederate I would have to take him out, but for a determined terrorist that would not be too difficult even without carrying any "prohibited articles" in a flight bag. There might even be a way I could survive.
Other jobs in this category include firearms authorised police officers and maintainance engineers (for reasons I will not go into).
For such staff, the only defense is vetting: the authorities must obtain the highest possible assurance that these staff are not terrorists. It follows that all staff in this category must be subject to the most rigourous government positive vetting procedures. Perhaps also staff responsible for securing catering supplies and any staff who need to dirve a vehiecle from land to air side and who have access to aircraft (e.g tanker drivers) would also need to be in this category.
For positive vetted staff, there is little marginal value in body searches at validation points since such staff have the means to destroy an aircraft anyway. Putting bags on the x ray machine would still be useful for the owner's own benefit in case it had been tampered with. Valdation point control for positive vetted staff should concentrate on veryfying identity. Technology such as retinal scanning may be useful here.
Full positive vetting is however complex and costly. It can also be politically senstive in relation to equal opportunities legislation.
For ALL other airside staff who are not positive vetted, validation point control must concentrate on search.
In summary, we need a scheme in which the requirement to search staff depends on whether the staff member has positive vetted status. The requirement for positive vetting in turn depends on the job category.
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
From: United Kingdom
Oh Come on ...children, children.
Poor old Murray. He has a job to do by statute. Almost everyone who goes airside is subject to search. I agree that searching armed police officers for arms is a bit of a waste of time. Security guards are searched by their colleagues. As for Customs and immigration, I see no reason why they should not be searched.
As for aircrew. Why not? I don't object to being searched. I am always civil to the guards, and they are always civil to me. Does it require an incident where terrorists armed to the teeth and disguised as aircrew walk straight through security unsearched to change your minds?
I happen to know that security guards at BAA airports are very well and recurently trained. They do watch the x-ray monitors because many of them have software which will plant virtual weapons in luggage and to slag this guy off for doing his job is just incredible given this weeks events. I can hardly believe I am hearing this. And from a forum moderator too.
tonyryan, How can you accuse security of being arrogant after posting that tirade?
Shame on you all.
Poor old Murray. He has a job to do by statute. Almost everyone who goes airside is subject to search. I agree that searching armed police officers for arms is a bit of a waste of time. Security guards are searched by their colleagues. As for Customs and immigration, I see no reason why they should not be searched.
As for aircrew. Why not? I don't object to being searched. I am always civil to the guards, and they are always civil to me. Does it require an incident where terrorists armed to the teeth and disguised as aircrew walk straight through security unsearched to change your minds?
I happen to know that security guards at BAA airports are very well and recurently trained. They do watch the x-ray monitors because many of them have software which will plant virtual weapons in luggage and to slag this guy off for doing his job is just incredible given this weeks events. I can hardly believe I am hearing this. And from a forum moderator too.
tonyryan, How can you accuse security of being arrogant after posting that tirade?
Shame on you all.
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
From: UK
find it terribly sad that some Flight crew members feel that they should not be subject to some security searches. Maybe it has bypassed some of you that you are NOT the only crew members onboard an aircraft (or maybe flying newspapers or mail in the twighlight hours has made you forget).
However many airlines have crewmembers from many different backgrounds.
It it conceivable that there COULD be a 'sleeper' working as a crewmember on any of those Airlines.
Having ALL crew clear security helps us ALL be in a safer environment.
All of the personal abuse on this thread is distasteful, maybe professional courtesy is a term forgotten by some people. We are all currently in a work environment which is very stressfull. We dont need to add to it ourselves.
However many airlines have crewmembers from many different backgrounds.
It it conceivable that there COULD be a 'sleeper' working as a crewmember on any of those Airlines.
Having ALL crew clear security helps us ALL be in a safer environment.
All of the personal abuse on this thread is distasteful, maybe professional courtesy is a term forgotten by some people. We are all currently in a work environment which is very stressfull. We dont need to add to it ourselves.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,178
Likes: 0
From: UK
Murray
I am a pilot who has always carried a knife (23 years). Why? I'll tell you.
We wear a 5 point harness which come together in a single quick release fastening (QRF). Twice in my flying career this QRF had failed leaving me literally tied into the aircraft with no means of escape. The groundcrew have had to cut the harness to get me out and send the remaining bits of harness for analysis.
Now these incidents have happened, fortunately, in quiet moments at the end of a duty BUT, had they happened when the aircraft was on fire I would be dead.
So I carry it for that once in a lifetime
event that might save my life!
I do not object to security checks for for crew. After all, the baddies could well be holding my family hostage and getting me to carry something through for them, BUT GET REAL - as previously posted here, we seem to have entered a new age of the hijack and if a pilot is motivated to become a suicide 'hijacker' he/she could stroll through security in their underwear and NOTHING would stop the event taking place.
Security - YES PLEASE - but let's make it practical and not just a publicity stunt for pax and media.
I am a pilot who has always carried a knife (23 years). Why? I'll tell you.
We wear a 5 point harness which come together in a single quick release fastening (QRF). Twice in my flying career this QRF had failed leaving me literally tied into the aircraft with no means of escape. The groundcrew have had to cut the harness to get me out and send the remaining bits of harness for analysis.
Now these incidents have happened, fortunately, in quiet moments at the end of a duty BUT, had they happened when the aircraft was on fire I would be dead.
So I carry it for that once in a lifetime
event that might save my life!
I do not object to security checks for for crew. After all, the baddies could well be holding my family hostage and getting me to carry something through for them, BUT GET REAL - as previously posted here, we seem to have entered a new age of the hijack and if a pilot is motivated to become a suicide 'hijacker' he/she could stroll through security in their underwear and NOTHING would stop the event taking place.
Security - YES PLEASE - but let's make it practical and not just a publicity stunt for pax and media.
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
From: UK
I cannot believe the arrogance of some of the posters here.
Security is there for a reason, if it is unnecessary then why is it done all over the world.
You dont know who the staff really are. What security does is minimise the risks. Yes there are going to be rogues and we all know about the Silk Air disaster (although not definitive). Security checks are not going to stop all of the risks, but it is better than none. Lets get real, these people save lives.
My past job was anti-terrorist ops and everything that is done is a mark of prevention and a deterant. Everybody needs to be checked - finito.
It is not just weapons, IEDs, but drugs animals etc.
Security is there for a reason, if it is unnecessary then why is it done all over the world.
You dont know who the staff really are. What security does is minimise the risks. Yes there are going to be rogues and we all know about the Silk Air disaster (although not definitive). Security checks are not going to stop all of the risks, but it is better than none. Lets get real, these people save lives.
My past job was anti-terrorist ops and everything that is done is a mark of prevention and a deterant. Everybody needs to be checked - finito.
It is not just weapons, IEDs, but drugs animals etc.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
From: london/UK
Interesting.
For information, a police officer quite often has got a weapon of offence airside...Where do you think the tear gas, flick knives etc from pax go? As regards to things that aren't issued, well..whats more dangerous than a gun, or tear gas spary..or a batton? And what about a policeman who finds something laying around airside that is a weapon....are u expecting the BAA to detain a police officer and invetigate the circumstances? No...I thought not. And before you claim it doesn't happen....it does I was a Policeman at heathrow..so I know what I am talking about. As far as I am aware, the BAA are searched, Customs & Immigration are not....The reasons behind that, I don't know, as far as customs are concened probably because if they have seized something you can hardly expect a private security firm to then investigate it can you. Immigration, I agree with you.As regards to fake ID's well heathrow useds a swipe card system..difficult to forge....If a police officer did turn out to be a terrorist..well a search would not stop him handing over a gun to someone or using it himself or handing it to someone else.so how about stopping police going airside..go idea that.removes any possibility!
For information, a police officer quite often has got a weapon of offence airside...Where do you think the tear gas, flick knives etc from pax go? As regards to things that aren't issued, well..whats more dangerous than a gun, or tear gas spary..or a batton? And what about a policeman who finds something laying around airside that is a weapon....are u expecting the BAA to detain a police officer and invetigate the circumstances? No...I thought not. And before you claim it doesn't happen....it does I was a Policeman at heathrow..so I know what I am talking about. As far as I am aware, the BAA are searched, Customs & Immigration are not....The reasons behind that, I don't know, as far as customs are concened probably because if they have seized something you can hardly expect a private security firm to then investigate it can you. Immigration, I agree with you.As regards to fake ID's well heathrow useds a swipe card system..difficult to forge....If a police officer did turn out to be a terrorist..well a search would not stop him handing over a gun to someone or using it himself or handing it to someone else.so how about stopping police going airside..go idea that.removes any possibility!
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
From: Newcastle
Tonyryan
Many of think a pilot using a leatherman in the flight deck is a threat to the security and saftey of the a/c.
Could someone delete this thread Raw Data's comments should not be left anywhere that the public can see them. The arrogance of some people is astouding.
Many of think a pilot using a leatherman in the flight deck is a threat to the security and saftey of the a/c.
Could someone delete this thread Raw Data's comments should not be left anywhere that the public can see them. The arrogance of some people is astouding.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
From: YVR/Pacific Rim
bally heck
I agree that searching armed police officers for arms is a bit of a waste of time.
Actually I was just about going to agree with you when I thought.. what if the officer was surreptiously carrying a gun to be later picked up airside by a terrorist?
Makes you think.
I agree that searching armed police officers for arms is a bit of a waste of time.
Actually I was just about going to agree with you when I thought.. what if the officer was surreptiously carrying a gun to be later picked up airside by a terrorist?
Makes you think.
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
From: NZ
Not arrogance at all, reboot... just waiting for someone to justify the procedures. So far, nobody, including you, can come up with a sensible reason why pilots are searched. So instead of offering uninformed comment, try answering the points.
Like you, Murray_NN chooses to cover his inability to answer with childish point-scoring... such is the quality of some security staff...
By the way, a lot of you need to learn the difference between legitimate question and personal attack. As it happens, I go through security several times, every working day. I am ALWAYS courteous and helpful to the security staff, who after all have a job to do.
That doesn't change the fact that a lot of what they do is quite pointless, and the proof of this is the inability of one of their number to come up with a single, solitary good reason for what he or she does.
Allegedly professional people should be able to distingluish between useful, effective action and pointless window-dressing. So, without a lot of hope, I once again ask anyone (even Murray) to come up with some good reasons for their actions.
Like you, Murray_NN chooses to cover his inability to answer with childish point-scoring... such is the quality of some security staff...
By the way, a lot of you need to learn the difference between legitimate question and personal attack. As it happens, I go through security several times, every working day. I am ALWAYS courteous and helpful to the security staff, who after all have a job to do.
That doesn't change the fact that a lot of what they do is quite pointless, and the proof of this is the inability of one of their number to come up with a single, solitary good reason for what he or she does.
Allegedly professional people should be able to distingluish between useful, effective action and pointless window-dressing. So, without a lot of hope, I once again ask anyone (even Murray) to come up with some good reasons for their actions.
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
From: MAN
On a recent flight (yesterday - won't say where or when) my carry on luggage wasn't searched. I thought it was supposed to be searched on all European flights now. Is that not true? If it should have been searched who should I notify?
Just a concerned and ignorant passenger. Sorry to raise a perhaps dumb question but don't know where else to ask it.
Just a concerned and ignorant passenger. Sorry to raise a perhaps dumb question but don't know where else to ask it.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
From: YVR/Pacific Rim
RAW DATA
So far, nobody, including you, can come up with a sensible reason why pilots are searched.
As far as I can ascertain, airside whould be sterile as far as possible. Aircrew, like armed police need to be searched for one extremely good reason.
Imagine a scenario where Aircrew are not searched. Is it not conceivable that they might just be the delivery vehicle to get the weapon (or whatever, even drugs.. but I'm not going down that path) airside? And then taken over by another accomplice?
Fait Accompli as the frogs say.
So far, nobody, including you, can come up with a sensible reason why pilots are searched.
As far as I can ascertain, airside whould be sterile as far as possible. Aircrew, like armed police need to be searched for one extremely good reason.
Imagine a scenario where Aircrew are not searched. Is it not conceivable that they might just be the delivery vehicle to get the weapon (or whatever, even drugs.. but I'm not going down that path) airside? And then taken over by another accomplice?
Fait Accompli as the frogs say.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
From: YVR/Pacific Rim
RAW DATA, this accomplice of course could be a passenger on another flight....
Aircrew could drop off weapon at designated point to be picked up by somebody else.
How you can't understand this is beyond me.
Aircrew could drop off weapon at designated point to be picked up by somebody else.
How you can't understand this is beyond me.
Death Cruiser Flight Crew
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 617
Likes: 7
From: Vaucluse, France.
rustbucket732, you asked for my "pearls of wisdom" so here they are. Some years back, my company "volunteered" me to captain an aircraft which was on charter to El Al. I have therefore experienced airline security Nirvana, first hand. I came away convinced that they really did know what they were doing and were truly professional. I have absolutely NO problems being security checked by the professionals of El Al!
I want their quality of security. If this means that Murray and his colleagues have to jack their standards up by 100% or collect their P45s then so be it.
As a practical tip, learned from El Al: When the flight deck door is open, for any reason, always detail a second cabin crew member to be facing outwards, to warn of anyone advancing towards the flight deck. Simple, yes? No, I hadn't thought of it either.
Finally, Murray, please stop these facile and patronising postings aimed at Raw Data. You are demeaning yourself and causing us to worry further.
I want their quality of security. If this means that Murray and his colleagues have to jack their standards up by 100% or collect their P45s then so be it.
As a practical tip, learned from El Al: When the flight deck door is open, for any reason, always detail a second cabin crew member to be facing outwards, to warn of anyone advancing towards the flight deck. Simple, yes? No, I hadn't thought of it either.
Finally, Murray, please stop these facile and patronising postings aimed at Raw Data. You are demeaning yourself and causing us to worry further.
shock, horror, security guards.Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
From: NZ
Aha! Finally, some common sense.
SSS is correct- and, more to the point, security staff are far more vulnerable to that sort of collusion than pilots are.
So, rustbucket, you are suggesting that a pilot would smuggle in a weapon for another to use? Leaving aside the obvious possibility that the pilot in question could end up being the victim of his own stupidity, can you point me at a SINGLE example of this happening? Thought not. By the way, have you ever witnessed the depth to which vehicles travelling landside/airside are searched? Do security open every meal container, or check every carton of juice for weapons? A lot of the time the stuff isn't even x-rayed. That should REALLY scare you.
Many of you seem to have difficulty reading, I have never suggested that pilots should not be searched, merely asked our resident "expert" Murray_NN to provide a rationale for this procedure. That he can't, tells you an awful lot about the state of aviation security...
I'll happily desist from this thread when someone can answer the points I have made... but I'm not holding my breath...
SSS is correct- and, more to the point, security staff are far more vulnerable to that sort of collusion than pilots are.
So, rustbucket, you are suggesting that a pilot would smuggle in a weapon for another to use? Leaving aside the obvious possibility that the pilot in question could end up being the victim of his own stupidity, can you point me at a SINGLE example of this happening? Thought not. By the way, have you ever witnessed the depth to which vehicles travelling landside/airside are searched? Do security open every meal container, or check every carton of juice for weapons? A lot of the time the stuff isn't even x-rayed. That should REALLY scare you.
Many of you seem to have difficulty reading, I have never suggested that pilots should not be searched, merely asked our resident "expert" Murray_NN to provide a rationale for this procedure. That he can't, tells you an awful lot about the state of aviation security...
I'll happily desist from this thread when someone can answer the points I have made... but I'm not holding my breath...