Security checks for crews are getting to the riduculous!

[radeng]

So if someone removes his belt for Heathrow security screening and has his trousers come down, are they then going to prosecute for indecent exposure? (especially if he happens to be someone not using underwear?)

[BobbyPAX]

Strange idea of security in the US

I fly as passenger on a regular basis and so I'm used to the searches etc in the US. The shoes/belt/etc off through the x-ray. A few days back I checked my suitcases at Salt Lake, got a Delta boarding pass but left the airport and went around the city for 4 hours. I returned and flew to LA after going through the x-ray etc. My bags didn't come out on the carousel, and it was the same for some other passengers. We found them tucked to one side, and were told they were just put on available planes and had arrived ahead of us....I enquired and was told this was done every day...so after all the security...they were flown unattended....on mass. I think that rather defeats everything !! Bob.

[PENKO]

BobbyPax, does it occur to you that there are rules and regulations about security that you may be unaware of? Do you know what happened to your socalled 'luggage that flew unattended'?

I am really not saying it all makes sense. I am not saying there are no holes. But do you have an alternative? Would you rather have no security at all? Just walk on and off?
Or do you prefer a 100% check on every single flight? Including a check on your private parts? The expression 'gaping open holes in security' will reach a different dimension then!!!

It's all a compromise.

[Farmer 1]

I remember reading a story a long time ago; it might have been in Readers' Digest, so it must be true.

Anyway, a chap goes to work in a third world country, and is told that a driving licence is the normal means of official identification. So, he gets the forms, and goes to have his photo taken for the licence. He is told to sit on a chair, and the photographer gets to work.

Problem: the camera doesn't work. After a few minutes trying, the photographer gives up, and says, "Sorry about this, but I can't take your photo today. Leave your name and address, and when I get the camera working again I'll send the photos on to you."

Fair enough, thinks the chap, and off he trots. Half way home, he thinks, hang on a minute, how's he going to take my photo without me there? Anyway he goes on his way, thinking he'll call in again in a few days' time.

A couple of days later, a letter arrives, containing a photo - of the chair on which he sat a couple of days ago. Thinking this is very funny, he thinks he will share the joke with the licensing office. He goes, and hands over the papers, and says, "You're not going to believe this, but - " and explains the story.

The man looks at the photo, then at the chap, takes the paperwork, and issues him his licence. For his entire stay, the picture of the chair was accepted as his ID without problem.

[Justin Cyder-Belvoir]

Penko,
I believe that some fairly extensive research on the effect of PEDs has been carried out. This is one document http://"www.house.gov/transportation...ccarthy.html"] and if you search NASA AMES you should find more.

My friend has just left one company to fly for another company, at the same base. He was based with company A there for close on 17 years and returned his airside pass when he left. He now has to go through the full disclosure and search process to get an airside ID with a different company at the same airport. Can anyone explain the logic in this?

[FlyingCroc]

TSA Gestapo tactics

Unfortunatley just as the RAF bloke mentioned above there is not much common sense with these TSA squareheads. This new government agency with over 50'000 staff was founded by Homeland Security (or shall we say Heimatland Sicherheit) and its members are accused of theft of over 15'000 pieces of bagages (they stole my childs christmas presents in 2002 in Washington). Besides that they were accused of groping women and the behavour that I witnessed in some US airports is just digusting. I even saw senior Captains from American Airlines taking their shoes off. Even my 3 year old child was forced to a body search When I complained I was warned in a rude manner to better shut up or worse will happen! Unbelievable what happened to the USA! How can we as citizen ever allow this to happen.

[PENKO]

JustinCB, the link is not working.

The point I am trying to make is against the sentiment displayed above:
What does it matter that a 'senior' captain is searched?
Would it be ok if it was a lowly fo instead?
(do not let emotion, or feeling of grandeur take over)

Is it really that strange that a child is searched?
Or would it be ok to search certain children from certain areas of the world?
As long as it is not your own?


As I stated earlier, there are a lot of loopholes in security, but come up with a working solution instead of insulting the guards here on Pp. (they are simply following the rules laid down by the airport authorities, how hard is this to understand?)

[FlyingCroc]

@Penko

It is not hard to understand. However the rules do not come from the airport but from Homeland Security. Why is it that every cop or airport screener now thinks he is some kind of authority and stands above the passengers and crew? He has to do his job but he must be polite, correct, not groping ladies and not stealing bagage. He is not above the law, he is as a matter of fact an employee of the people he checks, because we pay his paycheck now with taxes.

Now to answer your questions:

It does not matter if the crew is a senior Captain, FO or a Cabin Attentand. But iI think it is quite riduculous to supect the crew to be shoebombers. As mentioned earlier the only "crew" that hijacked aircraft were disgruntled employee etc, however these people were not armed and luckily we have now armed and locked cockpit doors.

Second I do think it is strange to stripsearch a child in this manner, especially since we got a special screening travelling on a Middle Eastern Airline. Now who would blow up his entire family with a bomb on his own child. Did this ever happen, not even in Israel or Iraq!

[goinggrey]

Are we missing the big picture?
disarm the crew of nail scissors and allow all kinds of mavericks to board with copious amounts of duty free i.e. 40oz. bottles of very flammable liquids!
I bet next time you are in the left seat at 30West and some drunk pours several bottles of whiskey onto the aircraft carpet and holds up a packet of matches, your attention will be focused.
Its ridiculous that we still have duty free sales at point of departure rather than point of arrival, at least from the security point of view as outlined above!

[skins]

Well you should have seen the guard's face when my nurses put their medical bags through the scanner. PLENTY of sharp objects in there. Certainly woke him up!

[PENKO]

Originally Posted by FlyingCroc

It is not hard to understand. However the rules do not come from the airport but from Homeland Security. Why is it that every cop or airport screener now thinks he is some kind of authority and stands above the passengers and crew? He has to do his job but he must be polite, correct, not groping ladies and not stealing bagage. He is not above the law, he is as a matter of fact an employee of the people he checks, because we pay his paycheck now with taxes.
Now to answer your questions:
It does not matter if the crew is a senior Captain, FO or a Cabin Attentand. But iI think it is quite riduculous to supect the crew to be shoebombers. As mentioned earlier the only "crew" that hijacked aircraft were disgruntled employee etc, however these people were not armed and luckily we have now armed and locked cockpit doors.
Second I do think it is strange to stripsearch a child in this manner, especially since we got a special screening travelling on a Middle Eastern Airline. Now who would blow up his entire family with a bomb on his own child. Did this ever happen, not even in Israel or Iraq!

Maybe not security related per sé, but a drugsmuggling mother has used the body of a dead baby to conceal cocaine. She was cought by security. This happened in the '90s.
This is how sick people are.

Now back to your case.
You say 'he has to be polite'.
Yes, in an ideal world. But if you are insulted on a daily basis by people who think they are too good to be searched, you might get a bit less polite. But honestly, do you expect to be treated like a king? Or just like the 100th sweaty armpit an crotch that has to be searched that day? Try to see things from the screeners point of view. The really do not want to touch your sweathy body any more than you want to be searched.

You say 'groping ladies'.
How?
Where?
When? If this happens regularly (which it does not) then surely you can sue his ass off. Think about it. You have a hundred willing witnesses standing in line! Here in Europe, men search men, women search women when it comes to a pat down/body search/frisk whatever you call it. I am absolutely sure the same is the case in the U/S. When you frisk a person, private parts will be touched. It is inevitable. And it is not groping.

'Not stealing baggage'
No comment.

'Not above the law'
No. But close to it. It comes down to this. If you want to fly, you have to submit yourself to a search. That's the deal. That's the game.

'Crew are not shoe bombers'
At one airport I used to work at, even the screeners were screened when they came to work. Initially this caused some consternation of course. But this is how the airport designed it's security.


A 10 meter concrete fence, 100% baggage and stripsearch and deployment of the army along the SID and STAR would be perfect. Anything else will be a COMPROMISE. Maybe some things make sense, maybe they don't. No problem in discussing that.

But don't fault the screeners. That's all I am saying. Play the game.

[FlyingCroc]

Tsa

I agree security is never 100%, but creating a huge agency which regularly harasses Pax and crew is not the solution either. Before security at US airport was private, done by low income personnel. Now a huge federal agency controls it. Is the security now better? I doubt it, I believe if someone wants to hijack they will be smarter than walking with a gun through the screening aera. There are many more loophole, catering, maintenance, even security personnel etc. In the US before 911 the main difference was that everyone was able to get to the boarding gate. Before entering the aircraft the person had to present the boarding pass and an ID.

Concerning stealing, since the US does not allow closing your bags anymore its much easier now for people to steal: http://kvoa.com/global/story.asp?s=2...Type=Printable

Groping also a problem: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/News/story?id=277647

[PENKO]

FC, the article in questio is about miss Lupone, an actress, a celebrity (alarm bells!). They always think they are above everyone else!

Anyway, I read the article, cannot see anything that went wrog. When you are frisked, breasts are examined. Your behind will be examined. Your crotch will be examined. All frequent travellers know that. The article only points out that communications should be improved, people should be warned that they will be subject to a fairly intrusive frisk. A valid point.

Let me say it again, security personell do not LIKE frisking people. They do not volunteer to do the frisking for the day just so the can piss off some rich people. They would rather sit behind the x-ray machine telling their colleagues which bags of smelly poo-stained dirty underwear to open than to to the dirty job themselves!

[Danny]

Never fails to amaze me, how many people fail to understand the logic behind all the 'security' we are discussing here. No one is advocating that there shouldn't be security screening. We have all become used to the facts of life after 9/11. In fact, many of us were used to it before 9/11.

I have no objection to having my bags scanned and passing through the metal detector on the way to the aircraft. What I do object to is the attitudes of some screeners, especially when in the US, and their ability to make your life hell if you so much as give a whiff of dissension. That is akin to the power the Brown Shirts in early Nazi Germany had. They felt they were above the law and they could use their 'powers' to make life hell for anyone they didn't like whether it was anything to do with the job in hand or not.

What I have always advocated and it is already known that it is the best way of preventing hijacking is passenger profiling. Now, before the PC brigades get all hot under the collar, I am not advocating racial profiling. I am advocating 'intelligent profiling'. I use the word 'intelligent' in both senses of the word, IQ and information gathering.

All passengers should be profiled before they even get to the check-in desk. The profilers need to be well trained and intelligent enough to do the job. Invariably we see all this coming down to cost. The profilers have to know what they are looking for on the passengers ticket, the answers that the passengers give, their demeanour etc. Based on the results they are either assessed as no/lo-risk or else they are passed on for secondary profiling by someone further up the food/intelligence chain. Only after being profiled can they check-in and then go on to pass through security screening which could be much less intensive.

The reason I advocate profiling, and I don't mean the minimum wage Securicor employee who has a quick look at your passport and asks a few very simple questions but can usually be outfoxed by anyone with more than single digit IQ, is that it is not the weapons that do the damage but the person willing to use them. All the scanning and TSA style rigid conformity tactics will not prevent someone with the intent to do damage from getting on the aircraft. We all know there are many different things that can be used as weapons. It is the intent to use a weapon that is the factor that we are trying to prevent from getting on board.

Unfortunately, the mandarins that dictate policy have felt it is better to have a big cosmetic show of strength that we are all now familiar with. The X-Ray machines and the induction loop. The farce is that we have all experienced the security person who insists on making you take your shoes and belt off and then emptying your flight case out looking for anything that could be considered by them useable as a weapon. It only takes a couple of well trained terrorists to get through that security and what we have is some people with 'intent' on board. The locked cockpit door may be our last barrier but that doesn't make it any safer for our cabin crew and passengers should the terrorists want to make a point by trying anyway.

You or I could accidentally leave a knife or a gun in our baggage. If we were able to get past the current security, accidentally, and end up on board with the weapon, there is no real danger as you or I have no intent to use that weapon. On the other hand, someone who intended to cause problems on board could still pass through the current security and once on board use any number of items freely available on board to carry out the intended acts of violence. There is nothing better than someone with something on their mind, specifically knowing that they intend to carry out an act of terror, to give off the signals that will alert a well trained profiler. Get them at this stage and you have a much more effective deterrent.

We need proper profiling. I don't mind being asked sensible questions and having my ID checked before I get anywhere near 'security'. Someone properly trained and not on the minimum wage but a career specialist can tell pretty quickly if I'm likely to be a threat. After that, all we'd need the heavy metal security equipment for is to prevent the neanderthals who put non-empty petrol canisters and other assorted dangerous goods into their hand baggage.

Sadly, profiling is probably too expensive and non-PC to be used properly except for a few carriers. That is, until the next spectacular by the terrorists. Door, stable, bolted, lock, horse... rearrange the words in the correct order.

[sky330]

The problem is threefold
1. Your security will never be 100%, you have to accept that, so to be as effective as possible, your security must be 'balanced'. It is stupid to spend a lot of asset on pax checking while at the same time, you spend nothing in other array. And THAT is what happening today and what p** off a lot of professionnal travelers.

2. The checkers must be professionnals, in all acceptation of the term, and this far to be the case. Most are incompetent and rude. Or am I just unlucky to pass only by the worst airports of the world???
I don't buy the 'it's the 100th guy/gal of the day being rude to me, so I..'. Same is valid for cabin crews in a lot of airline, and they keep having a smile, after 14h flight and saying 400 times in a row, 'good bye, Sir, Thank you'.
I don't buy either the "they are only low paid guy". In my country, firemen are very low paid guys and nobody complains about their competence or politeness.
Sure paying more will helps finding good guys, but mainly is is the selection and supervising process that should be revised seriously.

3. Any security system ends up by thrusting someone, either the checkers, the system administrator, whatever depending of the structure, but in fine you have to thrust someone.
It is also stupid to check someone througfully when you will HAVE to thrust him 10 minutes later.
I don't need any weapons, nail cutter, bombs, whatever to crash my aircraft in the Empire States building next time I will take-off from JFK and hold on...There is absolutly nothing you can do about it once and I am onboard!
So either you thrust me, on the basis of the security check you have done before giving me/renewing my licence and in that case you don't have to chek for nail clippers or you don't and in that case you should revoke my licence immediately.
It is either way, trying to be in between is maybe a nice show off for politicos but is wasting assets.

[PENKO]

Danny, the profiling you talk about is being done already on certain flights ouy of certain airports. It certainly has it's merits and is more effective than as you say, an induction loop + x-ray.

The problem is cost and time. It wil take at least 3 times as long to board flight. Handing over your bag and walking through the loop may takes 20 seconds max per pax. Profiling a person you take 20 seconds just to introduce yourself and the procedure, 20 seconds up to 1 minute to gather and look through documents. Another 30 seconds to ask questions. Add it all up. And this is with a normal blond blue eyed European person. Put an Arab through the system and you spend at least 5 minutes per passenger. That is the reality of profiling. You simply cannot profile a person in 20 seconds.

Cutting corners here and there (COMPROMISE!!) you might speed things up a bit. Either way, traffic will slow, lines will triple. Airlines will hate it. As I said, this procedure is in place already throughout Europe on selected flights. It works way better, but it costs and it is slow. Very slow.

[GE 90]

I have read most of the posts and tend to agree with the majority. We need security screening and it needs to be seen to be thorough. This makes potential terrorists think twice and we might even be lucky and catch one who is trying to bluff his way through.
It is a boring job and so is open to mistakes due to operator fatigue. (Imagine 2 hours over the Atlantic with no autopilot.) This means you have to recruit the type who doesn't bore easily. This means they are not employed for their brains. The problem then is you cannot train them to use their judgement, so they have to react in the same way when they find something.
I was due to fly out to rescue a plane and so was carrying my toolbox as hand luggage because we were flying out on the relief aircraft. (No loaders) Of course the box showed as a black rectangle so a physical check was carried out. Of the 2lb hammer, selection of screwdrivers, pliers and cutters, the only thing that was nearly confiscated was a Stanley knife. It took 3 people all explaining the situation to get my knife back.
Moral of this story? Don't go hi-jacking with a knife, use a hammer instead.

[PENKO]

Originally Posted by GE 90

The problem then is you cannot train them to use their judgement, so they have to react in the same way when they find something.

Sounds very much like the modern day pilot!!
Get the QRH out and follow SOP!!

[GE 90]

Originally Posted by PENKO

Sounds very much like the modern day pilot!!
Get the QRH out and follow SOP!!

Trouble is, the powers that be think that is the way to go for we LAME's too. We are no longer allowed to use our judgement. If it aint in the MEL it aint flying.

[Thrush]

Good post Danny. Most of us pros agree with what you say. get the punters to the airport early and profile the buggers.

Keep up the good work.