Security checks for crews are getting to the riduculous!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: South East UK
Age: 49
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about the pear that I usually get served with my meal? Its always so hard and unlikely to ripen for at least another week - maybe it could be used as a weapon? I can't wait till I'm Captain, they always get the edible fruit, not to mention the Crunchy Nut Cornflakes. 
Speaking of security, when I go through the centre at Concorde House where they have a lecturn, they get ever so confused when I ask for "a table for two, non-smoking". It always gets my Captain laughing and we get off to a good start to the day but I am fully aware that behind us as we leave, the security staff are saying, "What t
ers!"
Speaking of security, when I go through the centre at Concorde House where they have a lecturn, they get ever so confused when I ask for "a table for two, non-smoking". It always gets my Captain laughing and we get off to a good start to the day but I am fully aware that behind us as we leave, the security staff are saying, "What t
ers!"
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: usa
Age: 44
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mandatory
its a mandatory nowadays to conduct a background check in any transactions or what so ever that deals with safety. its better to take necessary precaution than be sorry in the end.
As it is your first post you are being treated well. Any others and your stay with PPRuNe will be short lived.
PPP
We are sorry too - that you cannot place advertising on PPRuNe without first getting approval, and entering into an agreement to pay PPRuNe its going rate.
PPP
Last edited by PPRuNe Pop; 20th Feb 2006 at 19:03.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: usa
Age: 44
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry
Originally Posted by cyber_maverick
its a mandatory nowadays to conduct a background check in any transactions or what so ever that deals with safety. its better to take necessary precaution than be sorry in the end.
As it is your first post you are being treated well. Any others and your stay with PPRuNe will be short lived.
PPP
As it is your first post you are being treated well. Any others and your stay with PPRuNe will be short lived.
PPP
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 6W
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A colleague in full flight crew uniform presented himself for security inspection at the crew lane in Heathrow. The security person demanded to view his ID, which was promptly retrieved from the jacket pocket and made available. “IDs must be displayed by crew on their outermost garment” announced the security person. Our Captain mentioned the many passengers in the nearby lanes without IDs on their outermost garment. “They all have boarding cards!” loudly announced the security person.
“Why aren’t they wearing their boarding cards on their outermost garments?” inquired our obliging and curious Captain.
.
.
.
Subsequent flight delay put down to Airport Security!
“Why aren’t they wearing their boarding cards on their outermost garments?” inquired our obliging and curious Captain.
.
.
.
Subsequent flight delay put down to Airport Security!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: is a point of view
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In this instance the security personel were correct and it's my personal view that the captain should have gotten a bollocking(how do you spell this?) from his boss. i think he could graciously accept his mistake rather than go into discussion on this instance.
I beleive most airlines have in theire ops manual stated that indeed he needs to wear his id visible when in uniform etc...?
(This however does not mean i like the way some people perform theire duty's as security guard, but as long as we all swallow this inadaquate way of doing business we'll keep on getting abused as flight crew
)
I beleive most airlines have in theire ops manual stated that indeed he needs to wear his id visible when in uniform etc...?
(This however does not mean i like the way some people perform theire duty's as security guard, but as long as we all swallow this inadaquate way of doing business we'll keep on getting abused as flight crew
)
I think Danny is correct, profiling has its place, and it is already being done in certain ways in certain places as a number of drug dealers have found to their cost.
Personaly I think the most effective security tool is a brief interview. Going into Canada a year or three ago, I was asked four extremely searching questions in about thirty seconds by their immigration guy and there was no way I could have answered them if I wasn't who I said I was and preparing to do what I was going to do. These guys were sharp.
In answer to all those who say "Well I got my leatherman into the cockpit", "I can get airside at XXX without going through security blah blah" and similar statements pedalling the fallacy that because screening is never 100 percent effective that it ought to be abandoned, you need to understand the military concept of "Defence in Depth".
The concept of Defence in Depth implies that you never rely 100 percent on one single resource to protect you. Instead you use a series of interlocking resources that overlap in such a way that there is always another layer of defence if the first is breached.
The five most obvous layers are locked and strengthened cockpit doors, sky marshalls, screening and removal of sharps, xraying of baggage and security background checks on all staff. That last item is being inflicted on the entire Aviation community in Australia as we speak.
There are other layers that may exist but I don't wish to speculate.
Personaly I think the most effective security tool is a brief interview. Going into Canada a year or three ago, I was asked four extremely searching questions in about thirty seconds by their immigration guy and there was no way I could have answered them if I wasn't who I said I was and preparing to do what I was going to do. These guys were sharp.
In answer to all those who say "Well I got my leatherman into the cockpit", "I can get airside at XXX without going through security blah blah" and similar statements pedalling the fallacy that because screening is never 100 percent effective that it ought to be abandoned, you need to understand the military concept of "Defence in Depth".
The concept of Defence in Depth implies that you never rely 100 percent on one single resource to protect you. Instead you use a series of interlocking resources that overlap in such a way that there is always another layer of defence if the first is breached.
The five most obvous layers are locked and strengthened cockpit doors, sky marshalls, screening and removal of sharps, xraying of baggage and security background checks on all staff. That last item is being inflicted on the entire Aviation community in Australia as we speak.
There are other layers that may exist but I don't wish to speculate.
ex-Tanker
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's next?
Trouble is, we having spent a lot of resources tightening up security in the air, the - what shall I call them - perceived enemy simply goes over to another tactic:
Blows up trains and buses, coordinates riots at the drop of a hat, burns cars and generally continues to get into the newspapers and undermine any semblance of civic freedom. The effect on public life is the same.
It is so easy to terrorise folks in peacetime. You can drop lumps of concrete onto motorways, take hostages, threaten murder, carry out murder...
This perceived enemy must be laughing up its sleeve at the extent to which we must go to fly safely. It will be well pleased at the tying up of resources and effort. While the tolerant world regards it as an annoyance, the perceived enemy regards it as war.
Attitudes in the comfortable world are slow to change and it is precisely this fact which favours a radical poverty stricken and easily influenced perceived enemy.
FC.
Blows up trains and buses, coordinates riots at the drop of a hat, burns cars and generally continues to get into the newspapers and undermine any semblance of civic freedom. The effect on public life is the same.
It is so easy to terrorise folks in peacetime. You can drop lumps of concrete onto motorways, take hostages, threaten murder, carry out murder...
This perceived enemy must be laughing up its sleeve at the extent to which we must go to fly safely. It will be well pleased at the tying up of resources and effort. While the tolerant world regards it as an annoyance, the perceived enemy regards it as war.
Attitudes in the comfortable world are slow to change and it is precisely this fact which favours a radical poverty stricken and easily influenced perceived enemy.
FC.
