Pilot rebels against security check

[tiermonde]

Security for flightcrews

One day, as we were going to operate a ferry flight, at a time when no scheduled flights were leaving from that airport, we found the security checkpoint umanned, except for one security guard who was not mandated to search us. When he saw two pilots show up, he kindly asked us to wait while he called on his intercom for screening personnel to come to the screening area to search us. As we waited on the side for them, a duty free employee walked up pushing a cart loaded with about 24 sealed cardboard boxes. The security guard pushed the door button and let the guy and his cart in, unsearched, while we waited. A few minutes later the screening people came, searched us kindly and waved us through. Some poeple have no idea what we go through.........

[Tan]

I’m always amazed at the naivety of people that think the present security system is safe. Folks its no safer now then prior to 9/11 in fact if anything its less safe because of the money been wasted on security that should be spend on aviation infrastructure.

[Tripower455]

The whole issue is a joke so long as security only applies to the crew and passengers while the rest of the airport gets a free pass. Like paying for security service on your home and they put a detector on the front door only, leaving the back door and windows unguarded. What amuses me is that so many people buy the whole TSA garbage, even pilots.

Boofhead, You nailed the situation, in a nutshell............

Screening flight crews in ineffective eyewash. It serves no security purpose whatsoever. We are subject to passenger screening to harbor the illusion of security (to alleve the fears of the flying public). We are screened for weapons that might allow us to take over an airplane, right before we do just that. We are there to take over an airplane, armed or not! Regardless of the screening performed prior to getting in the cockpit, I still have complete control of a potential WMD when I get there, so either I am trusted, or I am not. If I am NOT trusted, then I shouldn't be sitting in the cockpit.... If I am trusted, then I shouldn't have to undress before going to work. Which is it?

I can't speak for other countries, but here in the states, the only major employee groups (at most airports) that are required to be screened as passengers are flight crew, who, ironically, are the only employees that don't need to bring a weapon aboard to take over an airplane.

To answer the "terrorist take a pilots family hostage" scenario...... Why would they go to the bother? Their chances of getting caught go up immeasurably as more people get involved..... It's the same thing with them trying to impersonate a pilot. It would be a lot harder for the run of the mill bad guy to pretend to be a pilot, than say a bag handler.... They can simply get a job as a "trusted employee" (provisioner., fueler, bag thrower, cleaner etc.......) and waltz in the back door UNCHECKED!!!! It doesn't take a PhD to figure out the easily achieved possibilites due to this well known loophole.

What's worse is that the head of the tsA says that ALL employees are screened now...... He is either wrong, misinformed or just plain lying! I vote for the latter.......

It's surreal......... 9/11 should have been a wake up call..... What will it take to make my industry more secure?

That said, there is NOTHING to be gained by making a stand center stage at the security show......... Just cooperate and hope that the guy in front of you gets their attention so you can get to work without further hassle.......

This nonsense is nothing new....... prior to 12/7/87, flightcrew entered the "sterile area" like all the other employees, but due to the actions of a disgruntled former ramper (mass murder), flight crew are now subject to pax screening......but rampers are not.

A SOS should have been done right at the beginning, but, the politicians and bureaucrats kept appeasing ALPA by saying that we were going to get super duper universal SIDA access badges. Then we could be as trusted as a provisioner!!!!! I am still waiting for mine!

[Lorry_Driver]

People, people, . . . . lets stop for a while shall we, . . . and go back to the 911 reports !!!

Correct me if i am wrong, . . . please, . . . but were the 911 culprits AIRCREW or HIJACKERS ???

So why are we (the aircrews) being hasled at the security points. An MAS guy got strip searched 3 times at LAX upon entry b'coz his name had a "Bin" attached to it. Was all the hijackers in 911 wearing those airline's pilot's uniforms??? Were they NOT passengers who hijacked the plane and flew them into the twin towers and so on???

Most Jewish people have "Ben" in their names too, and some flying El-Al, does that mean that they are terrorsists??? Why then does the Israeli security trust them? Maybe the Israelis are the only ones who realize that the 911 incidence was the result of a hijaking and NOT the work of Airline Pilots???

I fail to see any logical explanation to harassing the Aircrew other than a panic attempt to hide something by the authorities involved, because I follow all the reports and it was amazing the way those guys manage to enter the aircrafts and flew into the twin towers in such precission timings. So they must be a well organized group and the CIA must have been up their arses for a long time, and if they can get through the airport securities, it is NO wonder because even now they seem to be looking the WRONG WAY, . . . us decent and honest working for a bite to eat, . . . . .

A food for thought, . . . .

PS, . . . . is a nassle scissors with rounded end and small (2 cm cutting edge) a dangerous weapon? if NOT, would somebody tell those MORONS in Ozland, please

L_D.

[v1rotate]

Going through Glasgow (a BAA Airport), the Captain who I was flying with showed his ID which was a Birmingham Airport ID. The security dork waved him through as he had not seen one of those before and thought it must be right.

I then get refused through because I have an Edinburgh ID (also a BAA Airport) and the card is not in the Glasgow system. What a moron he was.

[Nardi Riviera]

Was all the hijackers in 911 wearing those airline's pilot's uniforms??? Were they NOT passengers who hijacked the plane and flew them into the twin towers and so on???

GOOD & PROPER QUESTION, MATE!!!

Let the "know-it-alls" take it from here!

Forcing certified pilots to pass through passenger security is a big joke!!!

As mentioned before - pilots need no nailcutters nor pistols - they can only push the yoke forward and end it all.

SO - WHY force the sincere and professional commander of an a/c through such demeaning "security" measures? Get real, somebody out there!

[Idunno]

A lot of people have commented that putting pilots through the security hoops is all for show - to satisfy passengers.
I think that underestimates peoples common sense.
More than once - while having my flight bag riffled through by security - I've had the passenger standing beside me say "huh? you mean YOU GUYS get searched too? whats the point of that?"
Its all crap.

[effortless]

For my money the reason we all have such a hard time, crew and pax alike, especially at US borders, is that the people manning the desks are low paid, low esteem blobs who have official sanction for being nasty.

Security is still ****e at the back door. It always will be while outsourcing continues to be the management mantra.

Things being seen to be done will always be the policy, The tombstones are still relatively small in number despite the enormity of Sept 11. The risks are still low compared with, say, driving. If you want reasonable but effective security get rid of the bean counters and the politicians.

[Tripower455]

A lot of people have commented that putting pilots through the security hoops is all for show - to satisfy passengers.
I think that underestimates peoples common sense.
More than once - while having my flight bag riffled through by security - I've had the passenger standing beside me say "huh? you mean YOU GUYS get searched too? whats the point of that?"
Its all crap.

LOL.... you're right! The powers that be either think that :

J.Q.Public is really stupid..........

OR,

They are really stupid themselves! (I vote for a combination of both!)

That said............. Back in '88, when this nonsense started, I did have a lady comment (as I cut in front of her in the security show line) that she was impressed by the increase in security after PSA 1771, since even the pilots were getting checked! I didn't have the heart, or time, to explain it to her..........

It is all for show........ Screening flight crews accomplishes exactly nothing..........

[CarltonBrowne the FO]

Tripower, you are absolutely right in that holding aircrews' families hostage would be more effort than getting a job as a trusted employee. That is why it is essential that everyone should be searched going airside- the only exception being the armed police patrols.
Besides, it makes the security staff a bit more sympathetic if they also get searched going to work!

[Non Normal]

I do not understand the logic of some of the goings on in the US.
They say they are worried that the relatives of a pilot may be held hostage blah blah.

Yet, they publish the name and address of license holders?

I do not comprehend the logic behind this at all!

[Tripower455]

I do not understand the logic of some of the goings on in the US.
They say they are worried that the relatives of a pilot may be held hostage blah blah.

Actually, I've heard this argument mostly from non US folks on the PPrune......... Personally, I find it a fairly weak argument, but there is SOME logic in it, which is the reason that the US authorities have never even thought of it.

Yet, they publish the name and address of license holders?

I do not comprehend the logic behind this at all!

Don't feel bad..... there is no logic to it. It is all eyewash to appease a squeamish public.

[CarltonBrowne the FO]

A fairly weak argument? Possibly... but it IS a possibility. At least it represents an attempt to shut the stable door before the horse bolts.

[Speedpig]

I get screened upto 20 times a day. My job involves going airside a lot. EVERYONE should be screened and I can't see why you should object.
If you feel you're the victim of a job's worth, run him not the system.
I've yet to see a good reason why crew should not be screened.
You're above the clouds, not the law.
..... ducks and dons hard hat....

[boofhead]

It's not the screening, nobody objects to that. It is the insanity that surrounds the whole procedure. Aircrew SHOULD be given different rules, they SHOULD be allowed to carry screwdrivers, small knives (Leatherman etc) and such. Whenever possible, they SHOULD be given separate screening lines. Attention needs to be shifted from nailfiles to better detection of REAL threats. So much effort is put into the present utterly stupid procedures (making women drink their own breast milk, removing shoes, etc etc) that there is no time to just step back and see what is going on, and more particularly, to identify those who do constitute a treat and come up with procedures to handle that.

So far, with only the "front door" being secured, and no idea of how to handle a terrorist or terrorist group if it ever was caught in the act (and that has NEVER happened, and probably never will), it is simply an exercise in panic. The authorities are like terrified dogs, running around and barking, upsetting the traveling public with their noise and activity, driving people away from flying with the result that aviation has been damaged so much many major carriers are in, or about to enter, bankruptcy.

Only now, after four years, has aviation in the US reached the pre-2001 level, and the standards, service and such are so far below that level it is like a different industry. On other fronts, freedoms and rights have been taken away and the US has used its power to force other nations to comply with their draconian rules, such as deciding on who will be allowed to fly a foreign-registered airplane into the US, virtually shutting down training schools by denying visas to foreigners, and imposing thirty mile restricted airspace over the US president whenever he travels (OK those are not airline related, but the heavy hand of government does not care. If it flies, swat it!).
And has it resulted in an improvement in security? No.

The TSA's own inspectors are finding that they can smuggle the SAME percentage of guns and knives onto airplanes as was the case with the previous private security firms before 9/11. We all know of ways to beat the system, and to get dangerous weapons on board, and no matter how tough they get it will always be possible to take over an airplane in flight using available tools (bottles, etc) or just physical strength and bluff (look at the hijackings and attempted hijackings that have occurred recently; none used a gun, one used a pocket knife (failed attempt), none used a computer or shoes or keys or belt, one used a TV remote control (successful), one used a pair of wooden chopsticks, one attempt, almost successful, had three men break into the flight deck and beat up the pilots. The point is that the TSA and other airport security agents can do NOTHING to protect us from these threats.

So should we do away with screening? No, of course not. It weeds out the obvious, removes most of the threat from guns and large knives, maybe from explosives as well, but that remains to be seen. It needs to be no more intrusive than it was before 9/11 (the screeners of that time did their job and stopped all illegal weapons, even tried to stop the perpetrators. Today's screeners will do no better, despite the aggressive approach). The successful systems, such as the EL AL model, need to be studied and adopted. More use of phsychological screening needs to be done, and the oppressive presence of the authorities should be scaled down so that there are no long lines (terrorist heaven) at major airports and people are not made afraid to fly. If the back doors of the airports cannot be screened at a similar level, then prepare for the inevitable confrontation rather than make crew and passengers suffer. An even-handed, common sense approach.

And remember that hijackings, by definition, happen in the air. That is where we must concentrate. NO hijacking has ever been stopped on the ground (nobody who has had a gun taken during preflight checks has been charged with being a terrorist or even with attempted hijacking; they are all seen as boobs who tried to beat the system or were unaware that there was a weapon in their bag or pocket). 9/11 WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED if we, the pilots, had been told of the threat, and if the FAA had cancelled their policy of "cooperation" when they learned of it (and they did, we now know). Some hijackers will always manage to beat the system, so we need to be prepared and ready. Trusting in airport security alone is wrong-headed.

There is still a way to go, with training and tools for the flight crews (especially the cabin crew) needed, but so long as the threat is seen as being an airport one rather than an airplane problem, we will never get there and the present unbearable stupidity will continue to destroy the industry we all care so much about.

[bjcc]

Some very narrow minded attitudes here...Perhaps you should consider a few wider options.

The threat of families being held hostage has been mentioned, probably wouldn't happen? Tell that to numerous bank employees....Is it too much trouble? No, all very easy really.

Short memories many of you, in the early 80's a woman was stopped taking a bag through LHR, which she had packed, only she didn't know the bottom was made of explosives and the calculator her 'boyfriend' had giiven her was in fact a timer detonator.

Yes, of course you can push the stick foreward and crash into whatever you like, no security is going to stop that possibility.

However, the search is to stop you taking something through you either don't know the contents of or to stop you giving something nasty to someone else, either intentionaly or otherwise.

I agree the search shouldn't be carried out in public, it should be done with respect and in a way that preserves your dignity, but so far, like CarltonBrowne the FO says, I have seen no reason to except aircrew from searches.

[Flying Lawyer]

Narrow minded attitudes? Or just attitudes with which you disagree?
Perhaps it's wider knowledge and experience which leads many of those who have it to conclude that searching aircrew is nothing more than a window-dressing exercise.


"Just doing our job"


"Just doing my job"

The pilot of an Austrian EMS helicopter illustrates the perfect reaction - let him get on with it.
Trying to overcome a 'rules are rules' stance with reasoned arguments rarely works.

Pictures copied from the Rotorheads Around the World photo collection in the Rotorheads forum.
More amazing pics here.

[jojodel]

Hi all,
Roy Hodd got it right in his answer. As a pilot I got annoyed almost daily be so called secutity checks. Some are straightforward and do make sense while at other airports I do have my doubts to say the least... And after all I'll sit in the flight deck just close to a fire axe, fire extinguisher... and I'm in control of a considerable mass of metal and jetfuel. And the worst: at many airports all the people working in and around my plane
(catering, engineers, cleaners...) don't pass any security checks at all. And they could do harm, if they wanted...


enjoy flying, jojodel

[bjcc]

FL

No, a narrow minded attitude...or perhaps a refusal to look beyond what is obvious...

Broader experience and knowladge? Or perhaps a dislike of anything that appears to be a slight on aircrew?

If you want an honest opinon, ALL searches are window dressing, nothing more. A determined terrorist will find a way through. Security is a reaction, mostly with an added bit of guess work as to what might get tried next.

There is nothing new about searches of crew, it's been going on for years, long before 9/11, and not only crew either (in the UK) anyone (with a couple of exceptions)who goes airside.

Searches may be window dressing, but if it prevents a terrorist attack, which they have on at least 3 occations that I am aware of, then it's worth it.

By the way, your photos appeared in Police magazine a while ago, and are not what they appear to be. But then, if you don't think in narrow terms there was always that possibility!

[ShyTorque]

Some thoughts about security checks for aircrew.

First, making a group of people exempt from scanning per se could possibly provide a means for a determined and organised terrorist to exempt HIMself. i.e. A uniform which could possibly be used as a means of gaining an exemption. So, through the scanner we must go.

However, there is absolutely NO point in taking away a tool from myself and my colleagues at a security check and to do so at a public check area would completely undermine the confidence of any public witness in any event. For that reason, aircrew should be screened separately.

We do our own daily checks on our aircraft and we do actually NEED tools in order to open cowlings and pierce engine oil cans etc. The aircraft toolkit, not surprisingly, contains tools such as pliers, screwdrivers, etc, shock, horror! If I wanted, I could stab myself in the neck with any one of them in flight.