Pilot rebels against security check
We have an a case here in my region where a lass faces the firing squad in Indonesia if convicted of drug smuggling. The claim the lady makes is that her baggage was tampered with. Recent news is that a crim from a gaol here in AU has lent support to the claim, saying that the drug was planted into the luggage after it was checked in.
Since the introduction of these new security measures, I wonder how many crews out there have discovered missing baggage locks. Certainly a few snaps should be expected, but in countries outside of AU do you at least get to see a sticker or tag indicating a bag search was done & your lock thrown away? Not so the case here.
Since the introduction of these new security measures, I wonder how many crews out there have discovered missing baggage locks. Certainly a few snaps should be expected, but in countries outside of AU do you at least get to see a sticker or tag indicating a bag search was done & your lock thrown away? Not so the case here.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Boeman
I'm sorry, but I think I have missed your point up to your last paragaph.
I agree with ivor lobbon , in that the searches should be done with dignity etc. See the post you quote me from I think I said exactly that.
As to crew being targeted by security? I don't know if thats true or not, I will take your word for it. But it could be said that as some crew have broken the rules and not used common sense then maybe they have ruined it for the rest of you????
I'm sorry, but I think I have missed your point up to your last paragaph.
I agree with ivor lobbon , in that the searches should be done with dignity etc. See the post you quote me from I think I said exactly that.
As to crew being targeted by security? I don't know if thats true or not, I will take your word for it. But it could be said that as some crew have broken the rules and not used common sense then maybe they have ruined it for the rest of you????
Moderator
But it could be said that as some crew have broken the rules and not used common sense then maybe they have ruined it for the rest of you????
The tsA love to exert their authority on easily identifiable, authority figures. The inmates are running the asylum.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc
You say you missed John Boeman's point:
You and he may have been at cross-purposes re the difference between unwittingly carrying an item, and knowingly carrying a package but not knowing the contents.
That aside, JB's point was -
You claimed there had been instances where a member of crew had carried something airside when they didn't know the contents.
He challenged your claim, saying "When you hear of a case of this happening with a member of flight crew involved, do let us know."
You responded implying you could give numerous such instances ("Where do you want me to start?"), gave two incidents from your own experience, some unspecified anecdotal evidence from Customs officers, and concluded with a triumphant flourish saying "So, I have let you know. So, as I say, wouldn't happen? It has!"
JB doesn't think you have substantiated your claim.
________________
IMHO, one of your examples might and the others don't:
If you mean the BA Captain carried a package for a friend even though he didn't know what it contained, then it does.
The second one doesn't. The stewardess knew what the item was - she simply didn't know it was illegal to carry them even for self-defence in the UK. Many people don't. (They are legal in other countries - including some European countries, I think.)
In your Customs stories, the people who carried drugs knew they were doing so.
Your claim may well be correct - I have no idea - but I admit I thought (from the confident way in which you made it) that you were going to come up with some actual examples where flight crew had carried items airside not knowing what they were - or perhaps instances of flight crew unwittingly carrying something because they had been deceived into believing it was something else.
You say you missed John Boeman's point:
You and he may have been at cross-purposes re the difference between unwittingly carrying an item, and knowingly carrying a package but not knowing the contents.
That aside, JB's point was -
You claimed there had been instances where a member of crew had carried something airside when they didn't know the contents.
He challenged your claim, saying "When you hear of a case of this happening with a member of flight crew involved, do let us know."
You responded implying you could give numerous such instances ("Where do you want me to start?"), gave two incidents from your own experience, some unspecified anecdotal evidence from Customs officers, and concluded with a triumphant flourish saying "So, I have let you know. So, as I say, wouldn't happen? It has!"
JB doesn't think you have substantiated your claim.
________________
IMHO, one of your examples might and the others don't:
If you mean the BA Captain carried a package for a friend even though he didn't know what it contained, then it does.
The second one doesn't. The stewardess knew what the item was - she simply didn't know it was illegal to carry them even for self-defence in the UK. Many people don't. (They are legal in other countries - including some European countries, I think.)
In your Customs stories, the people who carried drugs knew they were doing so.
Your claim may well be correct - I have no idea - but I admit I thought (from the confident way in which you made it) that you were going to come up with some actual examples where flight crew had carried items airside not knowing what they were - or perhaps instances of flight crew unwittingly carrying something because they had been deceived into believing it was something else.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: The Dominion aka Great White North
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How long does this thread have to go on ??????
C'mon lads and lassies, it's one of the trials and tribulations we all have to live with in these not so Golden Ages of Aviation...
I think there are more important things to worry about (co. financial stability, work conditions, will the dog bite me as I have been away so often) other than the inconvenience of going through what we all recognize is a security PR exercise to keep the bureaucrats happy.
Time to move on ?
C'mon lads and lassies, it's one of the trials and tribulations we all have to live with in these not so Golden Ages of Aviation...
I think there are more important things to worry about (co. financial stability, work conditions, will the dog bite me as I have been away so often) other than the inconvenience of going through what we all recognize is a security PR exercise to keep the bureaucrats happy.
Time to move on ?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
security on arrival
Hadn't used Orlando Int'l (MCO) for many years until recently.
Arrived from Europe on non stop direct flight to find all PAX put through same type of security as PAX departing!
No problems on flight. Aircraft arrived safely after 9hr30min flight. Do the MCO security not trust security at European Airports. ON leaving Terminal how long would it take me to purchase gun downtown Orlando?
Arrived from Europe on non stop direct flight to find all PAX put through same type of security as PAX departing!
No problems on flight. Aircraft arrived safely after 9hr30min flight. Do the MCO security not trust security at European Airports. ON leaving Terminal how long would it take me to purchase gun downtown Orlando?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Had the same problem at MCO recently. I arrived, cleared customs, and was wanting to go outside when I arrived at a security point. I thought I had taken a wrong turn and attempted to back-track but was told that was the only way OUT. To get to the street, I had to change terminals using the monorail located on the sterile side of security. Why were we considered to be on the non-sterile side after clearing US customs, I have no idea, since that terminal had no contact with the outside ?
In MCO, forget putting a cabin prohibited item such as scissors in your checked in luggage, because after arrival you will have to go through security with that checked luggage to get to your rental car.
In MCO, forget putting a cabin prohibited item such as scissors in your checked in luggage, because after arrival you will have to go through security with that checked luggage to get to your rental car.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Ashbourne Co Meath Ireland
Age: 73
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
anyong notice how obtuse 'rent a cop' is getting at EIDW.
Security needs to be visible to be effective. That doesn't mean oppresive, unpleasant, aggressive, rude, gratuitously offensive and all the other things that have been commented on here.
It's no wonder that air rage is becoming a bigger issue. People now have to arrive at departure -3 to be sure of getting through the system, the entire terminal area is non smoking, there's more than a little hassle getting through the system and to the aircraft, then they're trapped in the tube for up to 11 hours. 14 hours without nicotine for some people is hell on earth.
Aisle seat, please.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: here and there (mostly there)
Age: 65
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, I'm only a paying customer and I don't know all of the details but for what it's worth...
When I fly, I put my life in the hands of the crew (those at the pointy end and those who's job it is to help me off the plane if something goes wrong). I want those nice people to be as calm and unhassled as possible. The crew have a difficult enough job getting me from A to B without having any extra BS to deal with.
I can't do the risk assessment so I don't know if any sort of security check is needed for the crew (there have been fors and againsts in this thread). However, if checks are needed they should be short, efficient and professional. Above all, they should not be in the same line as us, the punters - that just leaves everyone (crew and pax) feeling awkward.
When I fly, I put my life in the hands of the crew (those at the pointy end and those who's job it is to help me off the plane if something goes wrong). I want those nice people to be as calm and unhassled as possible. The crew have a difficult enough job getting me from A to B without having any extra BS to deal with.
I can't do the risk assessment so I don't know if any sort of security check is needed for the crew (there have been fors and againsts in this thread). However, if checks are needed they should be short, efficient and professional. Above all, they should not be in the same line as us, the punters - that just leaves everyone (crew and pax) feeling awkward.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's nice to see a Professional Pilot, who knows the real story about airport security, stand up to the litany of endless bullsh*t hassles at airport security checks round the world.
I tip my hat to you Sir. Good for you and well done.
Passengers need to know the added expense is wasted dollars pure and simple.
The endless hassle of the innocent has got to stop and common sense, surely must return to an industry gone mad with paranoia.
Anyone of us could have done what was done (back when) stark naked.
Now. Where's my Scotch?
Enough is enough.
I tip my hat to you Sir. Good for you and well done.
Passengers need to know the added expense is wasted dollars pure and simple.
The endless hassle of the innocent has got to stop and common sense, surely must return to an industry gone mad with paranoia.
Anyone of us could have done what was done (back when) stark naked.
Now. Where's my Scotch?
Enough is enough.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Preliminary results from the latest TSA audit shows that the government organisation is no better than the private screening services that operated in the US before 9/11. So all the bs is a waste of time, officially. Yet the traveling public (and many otherwise intelligent aircrew) accept it as necessary. Amazing.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: California, USA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is a pretty interesting article
Stupid airport security, part 3
Posted: April 20, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Several airport security screeners have sent me polite letters criticizing some of my comments in my last two columns, prompting this question to you: In managing our personal security, should we guard against possible or probable threats? Consider the measures and the resource expenditures I might take to guard Mrs. Williams and me against all possible threats to our security.
Even though I live in Pennsylvania, well outside of tornado alley, I'd construct a tornado shelter because it's possible for a tornado to strike anywhere. I'd no longer get into my car and drive off without doing a thorough check of my car's hydraulic brake system for leakage. I'd build an iron-reinforced roof to guard against the possibility of a meteor. I'd also purchase a metal detector to do sweeps of my property, to guard against the possibility someone might have buried a land mine. I'd hire a detective and forensic accountant. Even though Mrs. Williams and I have been married 45 years, it is possible that she might be stashing some of my money into a Swiss bank account.
Were I to take those measures, I'm sure the average person would label me as either paranoid or stupid. Why? It would take resources away from guarding against more probable threats to our security, such as burglary. While my focusing on all possible threats wouldn't be smart, it would make me a prime candidate to become a Transportation Security Administration official. Their vision of airport security is to focus on the possible as well as the probable.
It is indeed possible for an 88-year-old man crippled with debilitating arthritis to be a terrorist. It's possible that one of our Marines returning from Iraq for stateside reassignment – carrying ID and official reassignment orders – is also a member of al-Qaida ready to take out an airplane. It's possible for a mother accompanied by her four children, or a 92-year-old woman, to be "mules" paid by terrorists to bring something on board to blow up the plane.
It is also possible that a pilot plans to blow his plane up with a shoe bomb. That's reason for making him take his shoes off. It's possible that a blind person carrying a cigarette lighter will give it to a terrorist accomplice to light a shoe bomb in flight. There are other possible security threats. Women's stockings and underwear, as well as men's ties and belts, can be used as garrotes for strangulation. Soda straws can be used to blow poison darts.
While these are all possible threats, the question is, how probable are they? Resource expenditure on security threats just because they are possible means that those same resources cannot be spent on those far more probable. Moreover, if there were full implementation of the program to permit pilots to be armed, the more probable threats would become less so. In other words, arming pilots and some crew members would lessen a whole class of security threats.
The TSA's determined opposition to passenger profiling is in itself a threat to airport security. Take their additional screening. They have every incentive to be politically correct. But suppose the TSA had to pay $1,000 to each passenger they selected for additional screening who was found to be no security threat. You can bet they'd develop a screening method that made more sense, and it would include some sort of passenger profiling, including racial profiling. And, by the way, liberals shouldn't fret, because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in several affirmative-action cases that provided there's a compelling state interest, race can be used in decision making.
It's my opinion that sensible TSA security measures would allow us to reallocate resources away from policing against possible but improbable threats to policing the far more probable source of threats – one being our border with Mexico.
Stupid airport security, part 3
Posted: April 20, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Several airport security screeners have sent me polite letters criticizing some of my comments in my last two columns, prompting this question to you: In managing our personal security, should we guard against possible or probable threats? Consider the measures and the resource expenditures I might take to guard Mrs. Williams and me against all possible threats to our security.
Even though I live in Pennsylvania, well outside of tornado alley, I'd construct a tornado shelter because it's possible for a tornado to strike anywhere. I'd no longer get into my car and drive off without doing a thorough check of my car's hydraulic brake system for leakage. I'd build an iron-reinforced roof to guard against the possibility of a meteor. I'd also purchase a metal detector to do sweeps of my property, to guard against the possibility someone might have buried a land mine. I'd hire a detective and forensic accountant. Even though Mrs. Williams and I have been married 45 years, it is possible that she might be stashing some of my money into a Swiss bank account.
Were I to take those measures, I'm sure the average person would label me as either paranoid or stupid. Why? It would take resources away from guarding against more probable threats to our security, such as burglary. While my focusing on all possible threats wouldn't be smart, it would make me a prime candidate to become a Transportation Security Administration official. Their vision of airport security is to focus on the possible as well as the probable.
It is indeed possible for an 88-year-old man crippled with debilitating arthritis to be a terrorist. It's possible that one of our Marines returning from Iraq for stateside reassignment – carrying ID and official reassignment orders – is also a member of al-Qaida ready to take out an airplane. It's possible for a mother accompanied by her four children, or a 92-year-old woman, to be "mules" paid by terrorists to bring something on board to blow up the plane.
It is also possible that a pilot plans to blow his plane up with a shoe bomb. That's reason for making him take his shoes off. It's possible that a blind person carrying a cigarette lighter will give it to a terrorist accomplice to light a shoe bomb in flight. There are other possible security threats. Women's stockings and underwear, as well as men's ties and belts, can be used as garrotes for strangulation. Soda straws can be used to blow poison darts.
While these are all possible threats, the question is, how probable are they? Resource expenditure on security threats just because they are possible means that those same resources cannot be spent on those far more probable. Moreover, if there were full implementation of the program to permit pilots to be armed, the more probable threats would become less so. In other words, arming pilots and some crew members would lessen a whole class of security threats.
The TSA's determined opposition to passenger profiling is in itself a threat to airport security. Take their additional screening. They have every incentive to be politically correct. But suppose the TSA had to pay $1,000 to each passenger they selected for additional screening who was found to be no security threat. You can bet they'd develop a screening method that made more sense, and it would include some sort of passenger profiling, including racial profiling. And, by the way, liberals shouldn't fret, because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in several affirmative-action cases that provided there's a compelling state interest, race can be used in decision making.
It's my opinion that sensible TSA security measures would allow us to reallocate resources away from policing against possible but improbable threats to policing the far more probable source of threats – one being our border with Mexico.
