Security checks for crews are getting to the riduculous!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Security checks for crews are getting to the riduculous!
Since when was there a requirement to be wearing an ID when going through a PUBLIC screening point? Or when walking from that screening point to the aerobridge/gate? Airline IDs are for use in the AIRSIDE secure areas, ie, beyond the aerobridge, out on the tarmac, etc, and... arguably... when entering the the flight-deck.
Then again, why is it nobody ever checks the names on the IDs against an operating crew list prior to allowing them access to the aerobridge? That way you know that the bloke walking to the flightdeck is actually the bloke approved to take control of it! But no - far better to just confiscate his knitting needles in front of the public - THAT'LL fix the security problem.
Arrived on board a few days ago - half a dozen cleaners or caterers just sitting in J-Class, waiting for something (aircraft had been towed from domestic terminal to international). NOT ONE OF THESE PEOPLE HAD BEEN SCREENED EVEN ONCE DURING THE DAY. Brisbane International Airport, people. Any of them could have secreted something at one of those seats. (hypothetical, hushed, mobile phone conversation: "Which seat number did you get allocated?.... Ok.... No worries.... will leave the knife under that seat's cushion").
And no one seems to care, four years on from Sep 11.
No wonder there is no respect for security in Australia.
Then again, why is it nobody ever checks the names on the IDs against an operating crew list prior to allowing them access to the aerobridge? That way you know that the bloke walking to the flightdeck is actually the bloke approved to take control of it! But no - far better to just confiscate his knitting needles in front of the public - THAT'LL fix the security problem.
Arrived on board a few days ago - half a dozen cleaners or caterers just sitting in J-Class, waiting for something (aircraft had been towed from domestic terminal to international). NOT ONE OF THESE PEOPLE HAD BEEN SCREENED EVEN ONCE DURING THE DAY. Brisbane International Airport, people. Any of them could have secreted something at one of those seats. (hypothetical, hushed, mobile phone conversation: "Which seat number did you get allocated?.... Ok.... No worries.... will leave the knife under that seat's cushion").
And no one seems to care, four years on from Sep 11.
No wonder there is no respect for security in Australia.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Body
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I am constantly reminding security: if I want kill everybody I just aim for the ground. Nobody's going to wait for me to attack them with my nail clippers. Some (not all) security people haven't realized why they are doing the job: because they can't do anything else. When you act like an unintelligent jobsworth you will find yourself in conflict situations with other people.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boofhead
It was difficult to read anything else into your post.
I don't know what the TSA's stats are, and indeed how they arrive at them. I believe, that Europe has a much better record.
The problems of the 70's & 80's was not confined to 'there were problems, but they were localised and in those countries, with obvious official support, guns and explosives were provided. '
It was tried and failed in the UK. Our Goverments may have be guilty of many things but certainly not providing offical support!
The aircraft in the examples I used did not originate in countries that supply support for terrorists either.
On your point concerning the TSA, some (although not all) of the items used would not have been allowed on a flight in the US, had there been adequate security. Most would not have been allowed on one originating in the UK, where the security, if not perfect, is a bloody sight better!
You say
'The same can happen now, since the last way they would want to bring weapons on board would be through the passenger security lines.'
Which is the point of the excerise, to stop things being brought in that way.
It also stops crew carring items they don't know the contents of (yes, it does happen!)
You claim that the searches don't work? Really? How many hijacks before 9/11? How many since?
I do agree that a route in is via the back door. But I would suggest thats a failing in the American (and apparently Australian) way of doing it. Although inconvienent, certainly LHR manages to rumage through tool kits caterring vans etc.
It was difficult to read anything else into your post.
I don't know what the TSA's stats are, and indeed how they arrive at them. I believe, that Europe has a much better record.
The problems of the 70's & 80's was not confined to 'there were problems, but they were localised and in those countries, with obvious official support, guns and explosives were provided. '
It was tried and failed in the UK. Our Goverments may have be guilty of many things but certainly not providing offical support!
The aircraft in the examples I used did not originate in countries that supply support for terrorists either.
On your point concerning the TSA, some (although not all) of the items used would not have been allowed on a flight in the US, had there been adequate security. Most would not have been allowed on one originating in the UK, where the security, if not perfect, is a bloody sight better!
You say
'The same can happen now, since the last way they would want to bring weapons on board would be through the passenger security lines.'
Which is the point of the excerise, to stop things being brought in that way.
It also stops crew carring items they don't know the contents of (yes, it does happen!)
You claim that the searches don't work? Really? How many hijacks before 9/11? How many since?
I do agree that a route in is via the back door. But I would suggest thats a failing in the American (and apparently Australian) way of doing it. Although inconvienent, certainly LHR manages to rumage through tool kits caterring vans etc.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know we need security, even if it is only to stop the loonies, but if you believe the authorities, they are the only reason we are not having airplanes taken over every day, so "if you give up your freedoms and rights we will protect you". That is simply not true, since terrorists and hijackers are rare. Even more so in places like the US and Europe. A good security system would identify the problems and take action to stop criminal activity, rather than assume everyone who wants to travel is a criminal and treat them as such. There were plenty of opportunities to stop the 9/11 hijackers, well short of the airport; none were taken.
I don’t know about you, but I do not like being treated that way, having to take off my shoes, take my computer and video camera out for handling by idiots, not being able to do flying training in the US on a layover, showing ID whenever I check in, or go through security, unable to fly to the US without 24 hours notice, not be able to accompany my family through security to the Gate if I am not also flying with them, have my wife on the flight deck, etc etc, all things I was able to do until the hysteria set in, Hysteria driven by fear, by cowardice, and fear encouraged by the authorities in order to maintain control over us, and therefore gain Power. I am not a criminal, I had rights until the cowards took them away. I should not be subject to searches without reasonable cause, I should not have to show ID just to enter an airport, nor disrobe and be subject to random pat-downs. You might think it a good trade, but then you believe the bs they are feeding you. I remember that the people doing the telling are politicians and therefore are liars. The US pres said he can anything he wants, and he is probably right; what will you do if he says we have to be handcuffed to the seat when we fly? Or wear only an apron issued by the airline so they can see we are unarmed? We have already shown we will bend over on command, when we give up our rights even a little bit we have told them we will give them all up.
It is nothing to do with security since no matter how good it is, it cannot stop a determined hijacker or terrorist, and if you believe it protects you I don’t know what to say; you are either ignorant or afraid and need the assurance, however hollow, of your government that they will make you safe. When the bad guys pull out the ceramic knives, the bottles with alcohol or simply broken bottles, or, through force of their willpower, take control of the airplane you are traveling on, it will do you no good to then realize that the security of the airport has nothing to do with the security of the airplane.
There were not many attacks on airplanes before 9/11, it had been thirty years or more since an attack was made in the US, and even though 9/11 was horrific, it was isolated and in relative terms only a blip in a good record. It took years to plan and it could have been stopped at any time using the intelligence available to the authorities in the US and Europe. Relying on airport security to protect the traveling public is stupid. We have to be successful every time, while “they” only have to be successful once.
Employing a huge security army to harass honest people simply because they want to fly is a waste of assets, and I know we don’t have a secret staff of security personnel in the wings doing the real job. What we see is what we get, and they concentrate on things, not people. It is the intent that needs to be identified, and those who present a threat should be given the full treatment. With the airport security staff totally involved with minutiae and unable to see past the blinders they are forced to wear, with PC correctness forcing them to waste time searching old ladies and aircrew, putting people like Ted Kennedy onto a watch list simply because he shares a name with a suspected terrorist, etc, it prevents a proper watch being maintained, and real protection being developed.
It is not things (guns, knives) that hijack airplanes, it is persons with a determination to do so. They will use whatever is available, and taking small knives, scissors, leatherman tools and so on from aircrew or passengers merely ensures that the only persons armed on board will be the bad guys. Richard Reed, flying from a UK airport, managed to bring explosives on board (I doubt that this was as bad as it was reported, since the shoes failed to even burn, much less explode) and it shows that airport security cannot catch unconventional weapons any better than they can guns and knives (he was stopped the first time, not because of his shoes, but because he triggered extra attention due to profiling, something illegal in the US). It also shows that the attack was thwarted in the air, on the airplane, and by crew and passengers, not by airport security.
Stop guns, explosives and knives, of course, and on 9/11 this was done. The hijack teams on that occasion were successful only because the crew and passengers, acting in accordance with the FAA training of the time, allowed them access to the flight deck. Once they had that, boxcutters were enough. Boxcutters were allowed then, and can easily be taken on board even now despite airport security. It is not important what they have, there is no reason for us to let them get onto the flight deck. We can protect ourselves and will do so now we know the need. It took the FAA two years to agree, but most aircrew know this by now.
In places where the threat of armed hijackers is greater, the authorities must of course ramp up airport security, with armed guards and a willingness to shoot first. But if there is no direct threat, make the airport security appropriate to the risk. Use the resources wisely. Stop making me a criminal.
I don’t know about you, but I do not like being treated that way, having to take off my shoes, take my computer and video camera out for handling by idiots, not being able to do flying training in the US on a layover, showing ID whenever I check in, or go through security, unable to fly to the US without 24 hours notice, not be able to accompany my family through security to the Gate if I am not also flying with them, have my wife on the flight deck, etc etc, all things I was able to do until the hysteria set in, Hysteria driven by fear, by cowardice, and fear encouraged by the authorities in order to maintain control over us, and therefore gain Power. I am not a criminal, I had rights until the cowards took them away. I should not be subject to searches without reasonable cause, I should not have to show ID just to enter an airport, nor disrobe and be subject to random pat-downs. You might think it a good trade, but then you believe the bs they are feeding you. I remember that the people doing the telling are politicians and therefore are liars. The US pres said he can anything he wants, and he is probably right; what will you do if he says we have to be handcuffed to the seat when we fly? Or wear only an apron issued by the airline so they can see we are unarmed? We have already shown we will bend over on command, when we give up our rights even a little bit we have told them we will give them all up.
It is nothing to do with security since no matter how good it is, it cannot stop a determined hijacker or terrorist, and if you believe it protects you I don’t know what to say; you are either ignorant or afraid and need the assurance, however hollow, of your government that they will make you safe. When the bad guys pull out the ceramic knives, the bottles with alcohol or simply broken bottles, or, through force of their willpower, take control of the airplane you are traveling on, it will do you no good to then realize that the security of the airport has nothing to do with the security of the airplane.
There were not many attacks on airplanes before 9/11, it had been thirty years or more since an attack was made in the US, and even though 9/11 was horrific, it was isolated and in relative terms only a blip in a good record. It took years to plan and it could have been stopped at any time using the intelligence available to the authorities in the US and Europe. Relying on airport security to protect the traveling public is stupid. We have to be successful every time, while “they” only have to be successful once.
Employing a huge security army to harass honest people simply because they want to fly is a waste of assets, and I know we don’t have a secret staff of security personnel in the wings doing the real job. What we see is what we get, and they concentrate on things, not people. It is the intent that needs to be identified, and those who present a threat should be given the full treatment. With the airport security staff totally involved with minutiae and unable to see past the blinders they are forced to wear, with PC correctness forcing them to waste time searching old ladies and aircrew, putting people like Ted Kennedy onto a watch list simply because he shares a name with a suspected terrorist, etc, it prevents a proper watch being maintained, and real protection being developed.
It is not things (guns, knives) that hijack airplanes, it is persons with a determination to do so. They will use whatever is available, and taking small knives, scissors, leatherman tools and so on from aircrew or passengers merely ensures that the only persons armed on board will be the bad guys. Richard Reed, flying from a UK airport, managed to bring explosives on board (I doubt that this was as bad as it was reported, since the shoes failed to even burn, much less explode) and it shows that airport security cannot catch unconventional weapons any better than they can guns and knives (he was stopped the first time, not because of his shoes, but because he triggered extra attention due to profiling, something illegal in the US). It also shows that the attack was thwarted in the air, on the airplane, and by crew and passengers, not by airport security.
Stop guns, explosives and knives, of course, and on 9/11 this was done. The hijack teams on that occasion were successful only because the crew and passengers, acting in accordance with the FAA training of the time, allowed them access to the flight deck. Once they had that, boxcutters were enough. Boxcutters were allowed then, and can easily be taken on board even now despite airport security. It is not important what they have, there is no reason for us to let them get onto the flight deck. We can protect ourselves and will do so now we know the need. It took the FAA two years to agree, but most aircrew know this by now.
In places where the threat of armed hijackers is greater, the authorities must of course ramp up airport security, with armed guards and a willingness to shoot first. But if there is no direct threat, make the airport security appropriate to the risk. Use the resources wisely. Stop making me a criminal.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boofhead
Yes, the shoe bomber was big news here. Although, he went through a French, not UK airport.
I agree he was stopped on the aircraft. Because, as you have said previously, they are always one step ahead, security won't stop everything every time. Rather than as you now say, trying is just that, not an attempt at 'control'.
To counter what you have said, the last time someone with explosives was found by security at a UK airport, was entirely innocent. She was carring a bag given to her by her boyfirend. It contained a bomb, she knew nothing at all of.
So, profilling would have stopped nothing at all there.
So crew are more sensible than that? Most yes, all, no. To my knowladge crew have carried packages that they didn't know the contents of.
I am not sure what you are proposing as an alternative, but although the current system is not perfect, and never can be unless it is taken to extreems, what do you suggest?
I am sure you see it as
Yes, the shoe bomber was big news here. Although, he went through a French, not UK airport.
I agree he was stopped on the aircraft. Because, as you have said previously, they are always one step ahead, security won't stop everything every time. Rather than as you now say, trying is just that, not an attempt at 'control'.
To counter what you have said, the last time someone with explosives was found by security at a UK airport, was entirely innocent. She was carring a bag given to her by her boyfirend. It contained a bomb, she knew nothing at all of.
So, profilling would have stopped nothing at all there.
So crew are more sensible than that? Most yes, all, no. To my knowladge crew have carried packages that they didn't know the contents of.
I am not sure what you are proposing as an alternative, but although the current system is not perfect, and never can be unless it is taken to extreems, what do you suggest?
I am sure you see it as
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: 3rd ROCK FROM THE SUN
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to me the most hilarious, is that they dont allow you to take something stupid like nail clippers onto a aircraft, however on some airlines they give your steel knives and forks - go figure.......
69
69
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: 3rd ROCK FROM THE SUN
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At FACT / CPT, when a private flight lands it has to stop at the main terminal first to clear customs / immigration - ok nothing out of the ordinary. Pax + crew has to then be cleared through customs/immigration (and all the security protocol that goes with it) and proceed through to LANDSIDE. The crew then have to be driven landside to the opposite side of the airfield (there is only one gate for vehicles leading airside/landside) where they have to go through security again in order for them to get to their aircraft! As most of you know, you are not supposed to have the APU running without a crew member being there, which means that on most private jets (2 pilots + 1 hostie) the process have to be done twice as one crew member has to remain at the aircraft until his colleague arrives!
The DEPARTURE however, is where another headache comes in. Technically the GA area is OUTSIDE the national key point, so once the crew arrive at the hangars they ready the aircraft and taxi to the main terminal. Then they have to be fetched airside, driven to the other side of the airfield where they have to go through security (including going through metal detectors, being searched and their bags scanned). They then have to be driven back up to the international terminal landside, located once again on the opposite side of the airfield. Once they arrive there, they have to walk through the terminal (normal channels), go through security again, again be searched and screened and only then can they get to their aircraft.... can you comprehend such stupidity? I mean if any crew member (or even passenger) is going to smuggle anything into or out of the country they would just keep it on the aircraft - they NEVER check onboard the airplanes.
WELCOME TO AFRICA
69
The DEPARTURE however, is where another headache comes in. Technically the GA area is OUTSIDE the national key point, so once the crew arrive at the hangars they ready the aircraft and taxi to the main terminal. Then they have to be fetched airside, driven to the other side of the airfield where they have to go through security (including going through metal detectors, being searched and their bags scanned). They then have to be driven back up to the international terminal landside, located once again on the opposite side of the airfield. Once they arrive there, they have to walk through the terminal (normal channels), go through security again, again be searched and screened and only then can they get to their aircraft.... can you comprehend such stupidity? I mean if any crew member (or even passenger) is going to smuggle anything into or out of the country they would just keep it on the aircraft - they NEVER check onboard the airplanes.
WELCOME TO AFRICA
69
Last edited by GULF69; 19th Jan 2006 at 12:12.
Grandpa Aerotart
Recently I was operating crew LHR-DXB-etc. At the security gate our crew bus stopped while a large catering style truck went through the secure area, one out one in as usual. I watched as the driver was wanded and patted down and then got back in his truck and continued on...the truck was not searched at all...not even a mirror on a stick passed underneath for a quick look...nothing, NADA!!! Enough nasty stuff for 50 hikackings could have been on that truck.
We then proceeded through and my collegue was asked to remove his laptop for individual screening. He asked why and was told it's policy, very important blah blah....they didn't even seem to notice the laptop, charger etc in my navbag.
36 hrs later we pitch up at the second 'crew' screening point at DXB (having already passed through the public one) and find that the morons running it have the sensitivity so high that it is essentially beeping continuously. Four of my fellow crewmembers went through ahead of me...all ended up with shoes off, belts off etc etc etc....I think they actually got through in the end by fluke...they walked through the stupid thing between beeps! Seeing this I double checked for nothing in my pockets etc...this particular screening machine is nearly always oversensitive...nothing...watch off, reading glasses etc etc all in the little tray going through the xray machine.
I stood back several feet letting the machine settle down...it beaped 5 times while I was standing there...the only person closer was the screener. "Your machine is broken" No, no pass through. Of course it beeped and I was also required to undress for 4 more passes through...jagging a no beep on the last one.
Airport security is one of the sickest jokes being foisted on the travelling public. I would bet money 'lost' on all this BS is greater than the combined loss caused by the 911 attacks...the terrorists must just be rolling on the ground laughing...the threat of terrorism is infinitely greater than the reality...all they have to do for the foreseeable future is have a satphone conversation between one cave and another discussing their next 'attack' and watch the security beaurocrisy go into overdrive with 'credible' threats. No need to go to massive expense and risk by hijaking an actual aeroplane...just fantasize about it in an email or three and a couple of satphone chats and keep the west quivering in fear and anticipation.
As a tactic 911 was genius. The war on terror cannot be won the way GWB is fighting it...for the exact same reasons Nixon couldn't win in Vietnam. The ONLY way to beat the North Vietnamese was bombing the place back to the stone age..literally...kill every man women and child capable of pulling a trigger...target the schools so no-one lives to be old enough to fight....clearly NOT something that the 'west' is capable of in our 'enlightened' age....so we are fighting with one hand tied behind our backs...unlike our enemy.
What's the answer?
it aint airport security that's for sure...the very best that can be done to avoid another hijack is in place...bullet proof doors and a plane load of potential vigilantees ready to kick the living ****e out of anyone who dares **** with them and their travel plans.
Bush, Blair etc said after 911.."Go on about your lives as if nothing has happened..be unafraid or the terrorists have won"
Well we would if you morons would let us!!!!!
We then proceeded through and my collegue was asked to remove his laptop for individual screening. He asked why and was told it's policy, very important blah blah....they didn't even seem to notice the laptop, charger etc in my navbag.
36 hrs later we pitch up at the second 'crew' screening point at DXB (having already passed through the public one) and find that the morons running it have the sensitivity so high that it is essentially beeping continuously. Four of my fellow crewmembers went through ahead of me...all ended up with shoes off, belts off etc etc etc....I think they actually got through in the end by fluke...they walked through the stupid thing between beeps! Seeing this I double checked for nothing in my pockets etc...this particular screening machine is nearly always oversensitive...nothing...watch off, reading glasses etc etc all in the little tray going through the xray machine.
I stood back several feet letting the machine settle down...it beaped 5 times while I was standing there...the only person closer was the screener. "Your machine is broken" No, no pass through. Of course it beeped and I was also required to undress for 4 more passes through...jagging a no beep on the last one.
Airport security is one of the sickest jokes being foisted on the travelling public. I would bet money 'lost' on all this BS is greater than the combined loss caused by the 911 attacks...the terrorists must just be rolling on the ground laughing...the threat of terrorism is infinitely greater than the reality...all they have to do for the foreseeable future is have a satphone conversation between one cave and another discussing their next 'attack' and watch the security beaurocrisy go into overdrive with 'credible' threats. No need to go to massive expense and risk by hijaking an actual aeroplane...just fantasize about it in an email or three and a couple of satphone chats and keep the west quivering in fear and anticipation.
As a tactic 911 was genius. The war on terror cannot be won the way GWB is fighting it...for the exact same reasons Nixon couldn't win in Vietnam. The ONLY way to beat the North Vietnamese was bombing the place back to the stone age..literally...kill every man women and child capable of pulling a trigger...target the schools so no-one lives to be old enough to fight....clearly NOT something that the 'west' is capable of in our 'enlightened' age....so we are fighting with one hand tied behind our backs...unlike our enemy.
What's the answer?
it aint airport security that's for sure...the very best that can be done to avoid another hijack is in place...bullet proof doors and a plane load of potential vigilantees ready to kick the living ****e out of anyone who dares **** with them and their travel plans.
Bush, Blair etc said after 911.."Go on about your lives as if nothing has happened..be unafraid or the terrorists have won"
Well we would if you morons would let us!!!!!
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 19th Jan 2006 at 14:52.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
boofhead and chimbu: you are both totally spot on. Couldn't have said it better.
And chimbu: today we have exactly the sort of thing you are talking about: a "new tape from bin Laden" has been reported in the media. On it, someone allegedly says the reason there haven't been any further 9/11-type attacks is not becasue of security the West has put in place, but rather, because there "are operations that need preparation".
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...22-401,00.html
So, either:
(1) the "terrorists" are just stirring the pot, poking the ants nest to get the western bureacracy further worked up into another lather of panic; or
(2) our governments, via media, are just telling us that the "terrorists" are saying this, for the governments' ulterior purposes.
I no longer trust any of these.... people.... running our societies.
NO TERRORIST GROUP IS SERIOUSLY GOING TO MAKE SUCH PROVOCATIVE STATEMENTS IF THEY GENUINELY WANT TO SUCCEED WITH SOME FUTURE ATTACK.
Think about that statement and the implications that follow.
And think about what a cowardly society we have become.
Future historians will shake their heads in bewilderment at what western society became in the 21st century.
And chimbu: today we have exactly the sort of thing you are talking about: a "new tape from bin Laden" has been reported in the media. On it, someone allegedly says the reason there haven't been any further 9/11-type attacks is not becasue of security the West has put in place, but rather, because there "are operations that need preparation".
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...22-401,00.html
So, either:
(1) the "terrorists" are just stirring the pot, poking the ants nest to get the western bureacracy further worked up into another lather of panic; or
(2) our governments, via media, are just telling us that the "terrorists" are saying this, for the governments' ulterior purposes.
I no longer trust any of these.... people.... running our societies.
NO TERRORIST GROUP IS SERIOUSLY GOING TO MAKE SUCH PROVOCATIVE STATEMENTS IF THEY GENUINELY WANT TO SUCCEED WITH SOME FUTURE ATTACK.
Think about that statement and the implications that follow.
And think about what a cowardly society we have become.
Future historians will shake their heads in bewilderment at what western society became in the 21st century.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GULF69
to me the most hilarious, is that they dont allow you to take something stupid like nail clippers onto a aircraft, however on some airlines they give your steel knives and forks - go figure.......
69
69
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the things that puzzled me briefly when I started out as an engineer coming up a year ago;
Passing through security I was stopped and b0llocked for having a knife and fork in my bag (quiet openly), along with my microwave dinner. So that was taken off me. Yet, I was allowed to pass with my Leatherman, with a 4inch blade that I have on numerous occasions been lucky to have only taken small chunks of my hand off with
, but my very old and blunt knife and fork, not allowed!
No common sense applied to security at all is there
Passing through security I was stopped and b0llocked for having a knife and fork in my bag (quiet openly), along with my microwave dinner. So that was taken off me. Yet, I was allowed to pass with my Leatherman, with a 4inch blade that I have on numerous occasions been lucky to have only taken small chunks of my hand off with
, but my very old and blunt knife and fork, not allowed!No common sense applied to security at all is there
It seems to me that we spend kazillions on airport security, keeping pilots away from aeroplanes but letting unchecked catering trucks through etc BUT we allow tens of thousands to die on our roads, ten of thousands to die of heart disease and malnutrition, tens of thousands die from other preventable diseases.
Why? because it is not politically "sexy" to fix those things up.
If they devoted some of the money that is spent daily on airport and aircraft security on the things listed above casualty rates on aeroplanes would not change and the world as a whole would be far better off.
THAT is the way to stuff up the terrorists - they don't want a better world, they want a world created in their own warped image - stuff em up by making the world a better place and let us do our jobs - it just is too hard these days!
Why? because it is not politically "sexy" to fix those things up.
If they devoted some of the money that is spent daily on airport and aircraft security on the things listed above casualty rates on aeroplanes would not change and the world as a whole would be far better off.
THAT is the way to stuff up the terrorists - they don't want a better world, they want a world created in their own warped image - stuff em up by making the world a better place and let us do our jobs - it just is too hard these days!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: About 1 mile from WOD ndb
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Good Book
This is an interesting thread which has demonstrated to me that many flight crew have a deep understanding of security issues. Very welcome. It's a pity that they are not allowed more influence over the laws and rules that are applied. Airport security would be less expensive, less mindless and much more effective if they were allowed that influence.
May I recommend a book by one of the world's foremost security experts, Bruce Schneier, which covers many of these issues with brilliant clarity.
It's called Beyond Fear --Thinking sensibly about security in an uncertain world.
ISBN: 0-387-02620-7
May I recommend a book by one of the world's foremost security experts, Bruce Schneier, which covers many of these issues with brilliant clarity.
It's called Beyond Fear --Thinking sensibly about security in an uncertain world.
ISBN: 0-387-02620-7
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not strictly on the subject but
Flybe are doubling carry-on allowance and charging for hold bags to encourage pax to carry on more as a cost/time saving excercise, surely doubling chances of would-be terrorist getting something thru. Increases queues at Deps. If extra security staff are recruited to deal with queue this affectively shares Flybe's security costs with every other airline and airport user who ultimately pay for airport security. Great idea
Flybe are doubling carry-on allowance and charging for hold bags to encourage pax to carry on more as a cost/time saving excercise, surely doubling chances of would-be terrorist getting something thru. Increases queues at Deps. If extra security staff are recruited to deal with queue this affectively shares Flybe's security costs with every other airline and airport user who ultimately pay for airport security. Great idea
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi everyone.
I am in my last year at uni waiting to start pilot training but I have been working on Security at a major airport for the last 4 years. I must agree a lot of the security seems like utter nonsense from a flight crew’s point of view. I can see where what you mean and agree, a lot of it is utter nonsense. However, you have to look at the bigger picture. Most security agents (there are the odd one or two) are not out to get Mr Pilot to make themselves feel big and powerful, they are merely doing their jobs and tend to have up most respect for pilots so if you do not agree with the system, please do not argue with security, he probably feels the same way as you do.
A few things I have leant along the way, security is not about making sure every passenger and every bag is 100% guaranteed to be secure, that would be impractical. It is about creating a deterrent. Ok there are holes in the system, but as long as they only appear randomly then the security remains intact as Mr terrorist doesn't know where the holes are. Also, security has to be seen to be checking everyone as they never know who’s testing the system, even someone appearing to be a pilot could be a test of security in disguise.
I am in my last year at uni waiting to start pilot training but I have been working on Security at a major airport for the last 4 years. I must agree a lot of the security seems like utter nonsense from a flight crew’s point of view. I can see where what you mean and agree, a lot of it is utter nonsense. However, you have to look at the bigger picture. Most security agents (there are the odd one or two) are not out to get Mr Pilot to make themselves feel big and powerful, they are merely doing their jobs and tend to have up most respect for pilots so if you do not agree with the system, please do not argue with security, he probably feels the same way as you do.
A few things I have leant along the way, security is not about making sure every passenger and every bag is 100% guaranteed to be secure, that would be impractical. It is about creating a deterrent. Ok there are holes in the system, but as long as they only appear randomly then the security remains intact as Mr terrorist doesn't know where the holes are. Also, security has to be seen to be checking everyone as they never know who’s testing the system, even someone appearing to be a pilot could be a test of security in disguise.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not unreasonable logic Mr. Ryan, but the comments contained here and in numerous previous strings about flagrant, unreasonable and frivolous abuse of power undermine a lot of sincere efforts out there. Few security wonks have your education or espoused sense of purpose. In some large western superpower states (no names, no pack drill), the efforts are so predictably focused, not to mention bound by political correctness, as to undermine your point about randomness, as well as efficacy.
Having addressed the issues you have, now please tackle the one about why pilots are given the treatment at all. Once in the flight deck, pilots have control of the weapon. That punctuation device preceding this sentence is a period.
The earlier proposal by Ron and?or Edna Johns about verifying individuals against operating crew lists would do more to eliminate access confusion than all the checks visited on flight crew by one-dimensional screening. Flight dispatch/crew sched could deal with last minute drafts. (Not to mention the glaring obviousness of an unqualified person in the crew group, as mentioned in an earlier posting)
I discussed the screening issue with a very senior security person a couple years ago, asking why small Swiss Army penknives, specifically, were banned. He told me that somebody could take it away from the pilot and attack him with it. (He had already glaringly ignored the minor issue of the flight deck fire axe, but I figured what the hell, how often does one get the chance to light the meadow on fire?) After manoeuvring around the bit about how they'd know where it is (flight bag, which pocket, if he/she has one) I asked, "How would the miscreant get it away from the pilot?".
"Well they could use karate or something!"
"Then they wouldn't need the $%^@#& penknife, would they now?"
Stony silence. I decided not to tell him about an Israeli test pilot who told me that one of their security types (the highly qualified, trained and deadly ones who come along for the ride) told buddy that he could slit a throat handily with a credit card. (yes, yes, apocryphal, but guess where my money is?)
I think I'm on the list of those who've ratted out the emperor's corrupt tailors. I've been put through special hoops on more than one occasion. It’s the raised eyebrows from the pass list checkers that has me suspicious.
When all of this is packaged with truly appalling airside security for groomers, cleaners and lord knows who, you’ll never overcome the cynicism there amigo until some common sense prevails, and is seen to prevail.
Cynicism after all is environmental, not genetic.
Having addressed the issues you have, now please tackle the one about why pilots are given the treatment at all. Once in the flight deck, pilots have control of the weapon. That punctuation device preceding this sentence is a period.
The earlier proposal by Ron and?or Edna Johns about verifying individuals against operating crew lists would do more to eliminate access confusion than all the checks visited on flight crew by one-dimensional screening. Flight dispatch/crew sched could deal with last minute drafts. (Not to mention the glaring obviousness of an unqualified person in the crew group, as mentioned in an earlier posting)
I discussed the screening issue with a very senior security person a couple years ago, asking why small Swiss Army penknives, specifically, were banned. He told me that somebody could take it away from the pilot and attack him with it. (He had already glaringly ignored the minor issue of the flight deck fire axe, but I figured what the hell, how often does one get the chance to light the meadow on fire?) After manoeuvring around the bit about how they'd know where it is (flight bag, which pocket, if he/she has one) I asked, "How would the miscreant get it away from the pilot?".
"Well they could use karate or something!"
"Then they wouldn't need the $%^@#& penknife, would they now?"
Stony silence. I decided not to tell him about an Israeli test pilot who told me that one of their security types (the highly qualified, trained and deadly ones who come along for the ride) told buddy that he could slit a throat handily with a credit card. (yes, yes, apocryphal, but guess where my money is?)
I think I'm on the list of those who've ratted out the emperor's corrupt tailors. I've been put through special hoops on more than one occasion. It’s the raised eyebrows from the pass list checkers that has me suspicious.
When all of this is packaged with truly appalling airside security for groomers, cleaners and lord knows who, you’ll never overcome the cynicism there amigo until some common sense prevails, and is seen to prevail.
Cynicism after all is environmental, not genetic.
Plastic PPRuNer
One of the most hilarious was when I was stopped a couple of years ago for a pair of microscissors for microsurgery - the blades are about 5 millimeters (mm) long.....
No explanations would suffice, they had to go in my hold luggage. By the time I'd retrieved my bag and stowed the microscissors I'd missed the flight.
Dunno who I was supposed to threaten with those!
Ah well....
No explanations would suffice, they had to go in my hold luggage. By the time I'd retrieved my bag and stowed the microscissors I'd missed the flight.
Dunno who I was supposed to threaten with those!
Ah well....
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airslide
You and an earlier contributor beat me to it - The chance for the lesser paid/educated to show their 'authority'. Give someone three bucks an hour and tell them they are in charge of the nation's security and watch when the smart uniforms with lots of gold/silver turn up.
My own most ridiculous story - Doing military charters, sometimes we carry a courier. Going through security, the man handfs over his sidearm to security staff. Passes through arch, bell goes off, side arm is returned and frisk is carried out. A nail file is taken from courier. We all stand around in amazement squared. Moral of story - guns are OK, but it is not done to have manicured nails. Of course this was in land of George Dubaya, leader of ......
You and an earlier contributor beat me to it - The chance for the lesser paid/educated to show their 'authority'. Give someone three bucks an hour and tell them they are in charge of the nation's security and watch when the smart uniforms with lots of gold/silver turn up.
My own most ridiculous story - Doing military charters, sometimes we carry a courier. Going through security, the man handfs over his sidearm to security staff. Passes through arch, bell goes off, side arm is returned and frisk is carried out. A nail file is taken from courier. We all stand around in amazement squared. Moral of story - guns are OK, but it is not done to have manicured nails. Of course this was in land of George Dubaya, leader of ......