Pilot rebels against security check
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 given her was in fact a timer detonator.
It was El Al's security methods ALONE that thwarted the attempt - the explosives did not show up on an xray or anywhere else. Chances are that if she had been flying with any other airline that day, the plan would have succeeded.
No one here has a problem with El Al type security, so please do not use that incident as an example of what can be achieved by the total drivel we have to put up with on a regular basis.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BJCC, I know I tend to go on too long and bore people, but did you read my post past the first three sentences?
The woman with the bag in London was an incident stopped by El Al, which perfectly proves my point, thank you.
I tried to say, that the present procedures will not stop a determined hijacker(s), and there is no way to do so, since they can act without any weapons or using articles not banned (as did the 9/11 hijackers, etc) or provided by the airline itself (bottles, galley equipment).
I do not expect the simplistic attitudes of the public on a forum such as this, and it is a disappointment when so many buy into the garbage being fed to them by the authorities. Laws only apply to honest persons, they do not apply to criminals (and especially terrorists) so all the screening and hassling and inconvenience will not stop those people, it will, by distracting the airport staff, make it easier for them to slip through. There are not many terrorist attacks on airplanes, the majority of incidents are drunk, crazy or stupid people acting up. Terrorists do not seem to be targeting airplanes right now, but not because they are afraid of security at airports. Read a little about the 9/11 attack and see how long that took to plan, and how easy it would have been to stop it before it happened if only someone had connected the dots.
Pilots had been trained (and probably are still trained) to cooperate with hijackers, which included opening the door to them on demand. If they had known of the threat to use the airplanes as missiles, and that the hijackers had pilots in their group, the doors would not have been opened and the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon would not have happened. Simple problem, simple fix. Instead, the authorities have seen and seized the opportunity to grab more power.
Now they have expanded the military (and its budget) enormously, gone to war with anyone who does not agree with them, created new, huge, government departments (Homeland Security, TSA, etc), expanded all areas of surveillance and taken away our rights and freedoms with impunity and hardly a peep from us. And again I repeat: all this will not stop a determined hijacker.
Benjamin Franklin saw this coming.
The woman with the bag in London was an incident stopped by El Al, which perfectly proves my point, thank you.
I tried to say, that the present procedures will not stop a determined hijacker(s), and there is no way to do so, since they can act without any weapons or using articles not banned (as did the 9/11 hijackers, etc) or provided by the airline itself (bottles, galley equipment).
I do not expect the simplistic attitudes of the public on a forum such as this, and it is a disappointment when so many buy into the garbage being fed to them by the authorities. Laws only apply to honest persons, they do not apply to criminals (and especially terrorists) so all the screening and hassling and inconvenience will not stop those people, it will, by distracting the airport staff, make it easier for them to slip through. There are not many terrorist attacks on airplanes, the majority of incidents are drunk, crazy or stupid people acting up. Terrorists do not seem to be targeting airplanes right now, but not because they are afraid of security at airports. Read a little about the 9/11 attack and see how long that took to plan, and how easy it would have been to stop it before it happened if only someone had connected the dots.
Pilots had been trained (and probably are still trained) to cooperate with hijackers, which included opening the door to them on demand. If they had known of the threat to use the airplanes as missiles, and that the hijackers had pilots in their group, the doors would not have been opened and the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon would not have happened. Simple problem, simple fix. Instead, the authorities have seen and seized the opportunity to grab more power.
Now they have expanded the military (and its budget) enormously, gone to war with anyone who does not agree with them, created new, huge, government departments (Homeland Security, TSA, etc), expanded all areas of surveillance and taken away our rights and freedoms with impunity and hardly a peep from us. And again I repeat: all this will not stop a determined hijacker.
Benjamin Franklin saw this coming.
Moderator
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.
My heartburn stems from the fact that (in the US), the least likely to require a weapon to take over an airplanes, are the only employees that are screened for weapons.
The argument about holding a pilot's family hostage IS weak, inasmuch as why go to the bother when you can simply get a an easily aquired, high turnover job on the ramp (bag thrower) and BYPASS "security" screening every day........ It goes against the KISS theory. Too many people get involved with a kidnapping. Invariably the law will called and the successful outcome of the hijacking attempt comes into question. They are crazy, but not stupid.......
Again.............
The reason d'etre for PASSENGER screening is to screen them for weapons that would allow them to take over an airplane. Pilots, per our job description take over an airplane, with or without a weapon, EVERY time we go to work......
We can walk through the screening process naked, and we still take over an airplane. What has been accomplished? Why couldn't the bad guys hold my family hostage to coerce ME to fly the aircraft into a building or simply give them a crash axe once airside? Pax screening for pilots could not prevent either from happening, but that is too far fetched I suppose. What about armed LEOs riding in the back? They are ALLOWED to carry a weapon...... What about their families? What about rampers? Are their families not to be considered either?
Weak argument, IMHO........
We are either trusted agents, or we are not. Screening pilots as pax accomplishes nothing.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
boofhead & John Boeman
Yes the woman at LHR was stopped by EL AL security, the point is that she was stopped by security, the flavour of which does not really matter. In any event it was an example to show that such items can be taken airside without the knowladge of the person carrying them. A member of crew wouldn't carry something they didn't know the contents of? Think again it's happened!
Boofhead you make much about the impact on aviation of 9/11, and the downturn in caused. Sadly the public have short memories, are you and they prepared to put up with the degree of security operated by EL AL? I doubt it very much. Not when people want the easy of low cost airlines and turn up and fly. What effect on pax numbers do you think that would have?
There seems to be a difference between the way staff are treated in the US (if whats been posted on here is correct) in that only crew & pax are screened there before going airside. That is not the case in the UK. As far as I am aware that is not the case in the rest of Europe either.
The searches of ANYONE (with the exception of a few groups) have been going on in the UK for years.
So the prospect of crew families being held hostage is simplistic is it? Easier just to get a job airside? Not in the UK. Thats like saying it's easier to get a job in a bank and rob it than to hold the managers family hostage. Odd then, the IRA didn't do it that way isn't it? Not to mention numerous not so nice other people.
We all know you can fly you plane into whatever you want, that's not at issue, and no amount of security is going to stop that. What is at issue is to stop the other ways crews, or anyone else, can be used, coerced or conned into taking weapons & explosives airside, then giving them to someone else.
Yes the woman at LHR was stopped by EL AL security, the point is that she was stopped by security, the flavour of which does not really matter. In any event it was an example to show that such items can be taken airside without the knowladge of the person carrying them. A member of crew wouldn't carry something they didn't know the contents of? Think again it's happened!
Boofhead you make much about the impact on aviation of 9/11, and the downturn in caused. Sadly the public have short memories, are you and they prepared to put up with the degree of security operated by EL AL? I doubt it very much. Not when people want the easy of low cost airlines and turn up and fly. What effect on pax numbers do you think that would have?
There seems to be a difference between the way staff are treated in the US (if whats been posted on here is correct) in that only crew & pax are screened there before going airside. That is not the case in the UK. As far as I am aware that is not the case in the rest of Europe either.
The searches of ANYONE (with the exception of a few groups) have been going on in the UK for years.
So the prospect of crew families being held hostage is simplistic is it? Easier just to get a job airside? Not in the UK. Thats like saying it's easier to get a job in a bank and rob it than to hold the managers family hostage. Odd then, the IRA didn't do it that way isn't it? Not to mention numerous not so nice other people.
We all know you can fly you plane into whatever you want, that's not at issue, and no amount of security is going to stop that. What is at issue is to stop the other ways crews, or anyone else, can be used, coerced or conned into taking weapons & explosives airside, then giving them to someone else.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc
The point I was trying to make was that accusing those you think are wrong of having "very narrow minded attitudes" and not having considered the "wider options" is silly because the same criticisms could be levelled at those who think that subjecting pilots to the same degree of scrutiny/security as passengers is so important. (NB: I say 'could', not 'should' because such comments are equally pointless either way.) I can see I haven't persuaded you because you've since added that perhaps they refuse "to look beyond what is obvious."
If the stength of your arguments fails to demonstrate why those who hold a different view are wrong, resorting to suggesting they must be failing to understand the issues (or they'd agree with you) is rarely persuasive - especially in a discussion such as this where experienced and informed people have clearly considered the issues but happen to have reached different conclusions after doing so.
BTW, I posted the pictures because I thought the scene was funny and apposite. Your Police magazine may well be right that those actual pics aren't what they appear to be
, but they nonetheless exemplify that type of rigid unthinking 'jobsworth' attitude and/or patently absurd situation I suspect most of us have encountered at some point in our lives.
FL
The point I was trying to make was that accusing those you think are wrong of having "very narrow minded attitudes" and not having considered the "wider options" is silly because the same criticisms could be levelled at those who think that subjecting pilots to the same degree of scrutiny/security as passengers is so important. (NB: I say 'could', not 'should' because such comments are equally pointless either way.) I can see I haven't persuaded you because you've since added that perhaps they refuse "to look beyond what is obvious."
If the stength of your arguments fails to demonstrate why those who hold a different view are wrong, resorting to suggesting they must be failing to understand the issues (or they'd agree with you) is rarely persuasive - especially in a discussion such as this where experienced and informed people have clearly considered the issues but happen to have reached different conclusions after doing so.
BTW, I posted the pictures because I thought the scene was funny and apposite. Your Police magazine may well be right that those actual pics aren't what they appear to be
, but they nonetheless exemplify that type of rigid unthinking 'jobsworth' attitude and/or patently absurd situation I suspect most of us have encountered at some point in our lives.FL
Moderator
So the prospect of crew families being held hostage is simplistic is it?
Easier just to get a job airside? Not in the UK. Thats like saying it's easier to get a job in a bank and rob it than to hold the managers family hostage. Odd then, the IRA didn't do it that way isn't it? Not to mention numerous not so nice other people.
It's doubly ironic when you consider the reason behind screening aircrews, which was the mass murder of a planeload of people, committed by a RAMPER......... (PSA 1771...... 12/7/87) Prior to that incident, we were treated the same as all the other employees.
Can you see the irony? Does anyone see the logic? Does it still make sense?
As I've posted in the past, I would have a lot less heartburn if ALL employees were screened, since at least that would show that they are at least making a valid attempt at securing the airside. When you let most employees in the back door, what is the point of screening the least likely risks?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The old man in the train traveling over the Scottish Highlands was tearing up his newspaper into little squares and throwing them out the window. When asked what he was doing that for he replied "It is to stop lions from attacking the train, of course!"
"But lions don't attack trains in Scotland", he was told. " I know, effective isn't it?"
I happen to think that pieces of newspaper don't make us safer in the air either, but obviously many of you do.
Airport security is only one of the defences, and we are placing too much reliance on it, especially when it is 90 percent ineffective (my opinion). All it does is harrass the passengers and crew, and by making us congregate around security we become a better target. It also fans the panic many persons have when they get near the airport, and in turn that damages the airline business, which costs us jobs and financial security.
El Al does have intrusive security and for good reason, but I am not advocating we go that way either. I use them to point out that at least they have thought about it and developed procedures that work, proactive rather than the reactive knee-jerk response of the rest of us. If we put as much effort into thinking about what is needed as we do in hassling old ladies we could have a good system. We need a security that is able to step aside and allow for a free movement of the passengers, with no bottlenecks and no congregating. A watchful eye looking for suspicious characters and taking action only when experience suggests. An intelligent approach, if that is possible.
The real threat is in the air, and it is simple to make that safe:
1. Aircrew should, on receipt of a hijack alert from the cabin, lock and bar the door, cut off all communications with the cabin (to avoid pressure through threats), declare an emergency and land at the nearest suitable airport where the ground authorities can take over.
2. Cabin crew should protect the flight deck door, be watchful and report any problem promptly to the flight deck, but be careful not to overreact. They should be prepared and properly armed through training and, maybe, tasers or such and use these when necessary. If a hijacking occurs, let the flight deck know, try to regain control of the cabin and prepare the passengers for an emergency landing and emergency evacuation.
But I guess there are as many opinions out there as there are readers..
"But lions don't attack trains in Scotland", he was told. " I know, effective isn't it?"
I happen to think that pieces of newspaper don't make us safer in the air either, but obviously many of you do.
Airport security is only one of the defences, and we are placing too much reliance on it, especially when it is 90 percent ineffective (my opinion). All it does is harrass the passengers and crew, and by making us congregate around security we become a better target. It also fans the panic many persons have when they get near the airport, and in turn that damages the airline business, which costs us jobs and financial security.
El Al does have intrusive security and for good reason, but I am not advocating we go that way either. I use them to point out that at least they have thought about it and developed procedures that work, proactive rather than the reactive knee-jerk response of the rest of us. If we put as much effort into thinking about what is needed as we do in hassling old ladies we could have a good system. We need a security that is able to step aside and allow for a free movement of the passengers, with no bottlenecks and no congregating. A watchful eye looking for suspicious characters and taking action only when experience suggests. An intelligent approach, if that is possible.
The real threat is in the air, and it is simple to make that safe:
1. Aircrew should, on receipt of a hijack alert from the cabin, lock and bar the door, cut off all communications with the cabin (to avoid pressure through threats), declare an emergency and land at the nearest suitable airport where the ground authorities can take over.
2. Cabin crew should protect the flight deck door, be watchful and report any problem promptly to the flight deck, but be careful not to overreact. They should be prepared and properly armed through training and, maybe, tasers or such and use these when necessary. If a hijacking occurs, let the flight deck know, try to regain control of the cabin and prepare the passengers for an emergency landing and emergency evacuation.
But I guess there are as many opinions out there as there are readers..
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent point Tripower, you are entirely correct in saying there is no point in screening crew, while other airport workers go unsearched.
Where we differ is what to do instead. If I read you correctly, you recommend stopping the searching of crews. My solution is to have everyone searched instead.
Where we differ is what to do instead. If I read you correctly, you recommend stopping the searching of crews. My solution is to have everyone searched instead.
Panthera pardus puella
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: here, sometimes there
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
at one airport i worked at - i didnt have to go airside very often - but had a full access pass due to my job.
i was informed it had expired and had to get a new one.
i went to get a new pass and was told that i had to get the proper paper work before it could be sorted out - " oh and your pass expired 18 months ago" said the chap in the pass office, as he handed back my pass
this was post 9/11
as i was leaving that airport within 6 months i didnt bother to get a new pass - well they didnt seem bothered!
at the airport i work at now - i dont have an airside pass as i dont need to go airside regularly
a couple of months ago i did have to go airside to do a check of some equiptment and was correctly escorted by a colleague.
at the security check the woman told me my pass wasnt one issued by that airport, which it was - but she didnt appear to recognise it, her boss did though.
then after having been searched and screened etc - this chap asked if we were on official work as we couldnt really go through if we werent. we said yep - at work - his response? - "oh - its just 'cos youre not in uniform that i wondered "
well thats a tricky one - as i dont have a work uniform
so i can well understand the frustration of folk having to do this every time they try to go to work
i have no problem with there being security - but it does seem pointless at times
yaffs
i was informed it had expired and had to get a new one.
i went to get a new pass and was told that i had to get the proper paper work before it could be sorted out - " oh and your pass expired 18 months ago" said the chap in the pass office, as he handed back my pass
this was post 9/11
as i was leaving that airport within 6 months i didnt bother to get a new pass - well they didnt seem bothered!
at the airport i work at now - i dont have an airside pass as i dont need to go airside regularly
a couple of months ago i did have to go airside to do a check of some equiptment and was correctly escorted by a colleague.
at the security check the woman told me my pass wasnt one issued by that airport, which it was - but she didnt appear to recognise it, her boss did though.
then after having been searched and screened etc - this chap asked if we were on official work as we couldnt really go through if we werent. we said yep - at work - his response? - "oh - its just 'cos youre not in uniform that i wondered "
well thats a tricky one - as i dont have a work uniform
so i can well understand the frustration of folk having to do this every time they try to go to work
i have no problem with there being security - but it does seem pointless at times
yaffs
I don't think anyone is listening. One apparently knowledgable poster has made the point that the purpose of the screening is not what you think it is.
I have a suspicion that he is right, but will not try and explain.
I have a suspicion that he is right, but will not try and explain.
One apparently knowledgable poster has made the point that the purpose of the screening is not what you think it is.
To convince passengers that flying is safe? If so it isn't working. Pax can see the obvious flaws in "security" screening just as well as the posters here.
To deter terrorists from even trying to hijack a plane? Ditto. Anyone with any inteligence who thinks about the issue will come to the conclusion that hightened levels of security checks do little to increase safety.
To cover backside of politicians and administrators in the event of another terrorist attack? This, i think, is at least partly true.
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote
:Correct me if i am wrong,...please,...but were the 911 culprits AIRCREW OR hijackers ???
I thought it was common knowledge that some of the 9/11 terrorists were jumpseating crewmembers, that is why jumpseating for everyone ended for quite sometime, now in the recovery stage.:confused
Correct me if I'm wrong, Dream Land
:Correct me if i am wrong,...please,...but were the 911 culprits AIRCREW OR hijackers ???
I thought it was common knowledge that some of the 9/11 terrorists were jumpseating crewmembers, that is why jumpseating for everyone ended for quite sometime, now in the recovery stage.:confused
Correct me if I'm wrong, Dream Land
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And 9/11 happened to aircraft operating under FAA Regs which already prohibited passengers on American-registered aircraft from visiting the flight-deck during flight.
Our knee-jerk reaction was to introduce the same law for British aircraft even though, as had been demonstrated, it does nothing whatsoever to deter terrorists/hijackers.
Our knee-jerk reaction was to introduce the same law for British aircraft even though, as had been demonstrated, it does nothing whatsoever to deter terrorists/hijackers.
Can you see the irony? Does anyone see the logic? Does it still make sense?
Yes the woman at LHR was stopped by EL AL security, the point is that she was stopped by security, the flavour of which does not really matter.
Where, I believe, you are utterly wrong in your statement is when you say that "the flavour" of it does not matter.
"The flavour" of most of the "security" which we encounter is a very bad joke which does little if anything to make the flights we are operating any more secure. I will not repeat all the "measures" that have been taken which do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for the security and safety of the flight but do inconvenience flight crew.
In any event it was an example to show that such items can be taken airside without the knowladge of the person carrying them. A member of crew wouldn't carry something they didn't know the contents of? Think again it's happened!
I know that reading this you will immediately think "another prima donna who thinks that flight crew should not be inconvenienced!!!!"
It is not the inconvenience that rankles so much as the complete
abandonment of COMMON SENSE! That is all we are asking for, some common sense to be applied. Is that too much?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The purpose of screening:
Whatever it is for, it is not to stop terrorists. Consider what would happen if there were a couple of terrorists in line for security at, say, LAX. They are armed, have some knives and maybe a couple of hand grenades. They are fanatics and don't care if they die, so long as they take some of the Great Satanists with them.
What a perfect opportunity has been presented to them! Hundreds or more targets, none armed, all civilians, helpless! The terrorists' mouths must be watering!
Then the screener stops one of them, and says "Oi! you can't take that there great big gun onto the plane with you! Give it here!"
Use your own imagination for the rest, but next time you are flying, look around for what armed response is available, and ask yourself how they would manage to get through the press of panicked passengers to take these guys down. Talk about carnage. But wait, this is the same lot who plan to handle a hijacking of a 747 with an F 15!
Truly, anyone who buys into this garbage cannot have given it any thought at all. But rest assured, terrorists are not stupid enough to risk everything by carrying guns and knives. They don't need to, as they and other hijackers have demonstrated. Passing through security is easy, and there are plenty of ways to impose one's will on a terrified planeload of passengers without computers, nailfiles, exploding shoes and the other THINGS that security is so concerned about. So long as airport security is looking the wrong way, terrorists have nothing to fear. Airport security is a deterrence? Give me a break.
Whatever it is for, it is not to stop terrorists. Consider what would happen if there were a couple of terrorists in line for security at, say, LAX. They are armed, have some knives and maybe a couple of hand grenades. They are fanatics and don't care if they die, so long as they take some of the Great Satanists with them.
What a perfect opportunity has been presented to them! Hundreds or more targets, none armed, all civilians, helpless! The terrorists' mouths must be watering!
Then the screener stops one of them, and says "Oi! you can't take that there great big gun onto the plane with you! Give it here!"
Use your own imagination for the rest, but next time you are flying, look around for what armed response is available, and ask yourself how they would manage to get through the press of panicked passengers to take these guys down. Talk about carnage. But wait, this is the same lot who plan to handle a hijacking of a 747 with an F 15!
Truly, anyone who buys into this garbage cannot have given it any thought at all. But rest assured, terrorists are not stupid enough to risk everything by carrying guns and knives. They don't need to, as they and other hijackers have demonstrated. Passing through security is easy, and there are plenty of ways to impose one's will on a terrified planeload of passengers without computers, nailfiles, exploding shoes and the other THINGS that security is so concerned about. So long as airport security is looking the wrong way, terrorists have nothing to fear. Airport security is a deterrence? Give me a break.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Boeman
Yes certainly I will let you know...
Where do you want me to start
BA captain with a package to deliver for a freind...Not an offence at the time (probably still isn't) so no police action.
BM Stewardess with a tear gas canister, yes she knew what it was, but wasn't aware it's illegal in the UK.
Those are 2 I have dealt with, customs, to my certain knowladge have arrested crew with packages being brought back to the UK, beliving they were drugs, yes they were in the cases I know of, but easy enough to dupe someone into beliving it's drugs when it isn't.
So, I have let you know. So, as I say, wouldn't happen? It has!
Perhaps, you should go and have a look at the collection of weapons (exculding nailfiles etc) that the BAA take from pax/crew/airside workers in the UK. It will probably suprise you.
No, in fact I don't think you are trying to be a prima donna, and common sense does has to be applied. Common sense dictates that, yes you can point your plane where you like once the doors shut and there is sod all security can do about it. If that was the whole story, I would agree with you that there is no purpose to be served in searching any pilot. However it isn't the whole point, and thats is where you and I will have to agree to differ.
Yes certainly I will let you know...
Where do you want me to start
BA captain with a package to deliver for a freind...Not an offence at the time (probably still isn't) so no police action.
BM Stewardess with a tear gas canister, yes she knew what it was, but wasn't aware it's illegal in the UK.
Those are 2 I have dealt with, customs, to my certain knowladge have arrested crew with packages being brought back to the UK, beliving they were drugs, yes they were in the cases I know of, but easy enough to dupe someone into beliving it's drugs when it isn't.
So, I have let you know. So, as I say, wouldn't happen? It has!
Perhaps, you should go and have a look at the collection of weapons (exculding nailfiles etc) that the BAA take from pax/crew/airside workers in the UK. It will probably suprise you.
No, in fact I don't think you are trying to be a prima donna, and common sense does has to be applied. Common sense dictates that, yes you can point your plane where you like once the doors shut and there is sod all security can do about it. If that was the whole story, I would agree with you that there is no purpose to be served in searching any pilot. However it isn't the whole point, and thats is where you and I will have to agree to differ.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: north of south
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To all the security people out there.
All we pilots can ask for is a bit of discretion and dignity when you have to deal with us, be it when we are in full uniform in front of the public ( more about that in a mo) or when we travel in half uniform /disguise but you know we are crew.
Dont p*ss us off - we might be flying one of your family home at the end of a 14 hour day, so play it sensible and keep the crew smiling.
Oh and yes I have been in the queue a number of times in half disguise and seen pilots and crew being given the full monty and I will tell you for a fact that the fair paying public around me were not too happy I could hear the comments and feel the tension. It just ain't good.
BTW the slickest place I have been to yet in dealing with crew -LLBG
Go take a look and look at the psychology (sp?)- you have a lot to learn!
All we pilots can ask for is a bit of discretion and dignity when you have to deal with us, be it when we are in full uniform in front of the public ( more about that in a mo) or when we travel in half uniform /disguise but you know we are crew.
Dont p*ss us off - we might be flying one of your family home at the end of a 14 hour day, so play it sensible and keep the crew smiling.
Oh and yes I have been in the queue a number of times in half disguise and seen pilots and crew being given the full monty and I will tell you for a fact that the fair paying public around me were not too happy I could hear the comments and feel the tension. It just ain't good.
BTW the slickest place I have been to yet in dealing with crew -LLBG
Go take a look and look at the psychology (sp?)- you have a lot to learn!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: misc.
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well said, LLBG are very professional. i'm late latching onto this thread, so forgive me if it's been said, anyong notice how obtuse 'rent a cop' is getting at EIDW. dealt with a couple of nasty individuals there lately and heard of many more incidents involving guys with id not in uniform, guys with laptops, cameras etc. it's not hard to be friendly and it makes a big difference.
bjcc (and everyone else), please forgive my pedantic behaviour as I place my forehead back against the wall.
Again you said,
The first sentence is referring to some one carrying something without knowing they were doing it, such as the lady in the El Al incident. You managed to catch me out completely by tying your second sentence together with that. You see I thought we were talking about people attempting to put weapons or explosives covertly onto aeroplanes.
The examples you gave; presumably the Captain wasn't carrying either of the above (although I accept from what you say that perhaps, maybe he possibly could have been......) but he knew he was carrying something!
As for this "tear gas canister" the stewardess was carrying in her purse - the full riot control variety was it??
I think the post by ivor lobbon just above has brought us back to the burning question: why are flightcrew treated as a special target by security?
Again you said,
In any event it was an example to show that such items can be taken airside without the knowladge of the person carrying them. A member of crew wouldn't carry something they didn't know the contents of? Think again it's happened!
The examples you gave; presumably the Captain wasn't carrying either of the above (although I accept from what you say that perhaps, maybe he possibly could have been......) but he knew he was carrying something!
As for this "tear gas canister" the stewardess was carrying in her purse - the full riot control variety was it??
I think the post by ivor lobbon just above has brought us back to the burning question: why are flightcrew treated as a special target by security?