Airport Security (Merged) - Effects on Crew/Staff

[Aeropig1]

There are some pretty strong views on here and I am not saying who is right or wrong but I just want to put this in the perspective from the security side.

The game has changed since our days of dealing with domestic terrorism of the 80's and security on a national and local level has to evolve and it does. Much talk of intelligence lead security and this was an example of it. The measures that were implemented were done so in a short time period and those responsible believe that those measures are comensurate to the threat. Please also remember that they are responsible for the security and safety for those on the ground underneath you. The intelligence, according to the home secretary, suggested that the attacks would consist of liquid explosive (used before against Phillipine Airlines smuggled on in contact lens cleaning solution containers) and in the absence of practical screening for this then it is sensible to prevent individuals taking fluids onto the aircraft and I am afraid that has to apply to crew. I accept the argument that you have control of the aircraft and can do what you like with it anyway but the intelligence was clearly 'liquid explosive'.

Other restrictions on crew items are already being reviewed to make things as practical as possible but this was an exceptional situation with exceptional consequences.

Instead of seeing who is the biggest cheese on the airfield and questioning evrybody elses proffessionalism should we not be trying to defeat the threat together? Crews in my experience, are proffessional crews and I would not dream of telling them how to operate an aircraft. I would not dream of telling a Dr how to operate yet it appears evryone is a security expert that knows how to do the job better.

Security can never be 100% if you want to have an industry. It has to compromise and operate in the most efficient way within that compromise. It does not always get it right but it always acts in the way it sees as best for all. I can tell you that the people who make these decisions (not me) are well aware of the effects on operations and will reduce the requirements when it is safe to do so. Remember that you base your opinions on the media interpretation and the TV 'experts' (ever wondered why they have enough time in their schedule to spend all day on the telly?) the decision makers have far more 'real time' information and yes, even more information than your union's.

The ANO speaks of the 'Priveleges' of the flying licences. To fly is not a right where as the entitlement to life is. This is a strong principle in the decision making process.

At Gatwick today nearly evrybody I saw accepted the situation for what it is and the fact that the publicity was given such a big airing, most arrived with no hand luggage allowing things to run smoother.

I can assure you that evrybody within the security side is working hard to overcome problems whilst maintaining adequate protection for all.

And for Chandlers dad - Arrogance is a two way street!

EDIT: For DutchJock:
Because the intelligence is suggesting a specific method of attack which does not include your axe. The alternative is we move from intelligence lead to total blanket all the time and the short term measures now would be the norm. Hope this helps you understand.
Have a good night

[microlight AV8R]

Dutchjock
Speaking as a fairly regular airline passenger I share your concern.
If we can't trust aircrew we may as well give up. I just got an email from EasyJet entitled Business as usual: It would seem that the ladies can take onboard sufficient sanitary items for the duration of the journey... Not in the box !! It seems that the terrorists have had some degree of success if that is to be the norm.

When I go flying (very small single prop) I always have a bottle of water in the aircraft. I really cannot see how flight crew can be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as Joe Public.

I like to take a magazine onboard to read. Surely that is not unreasonable?

The extreme restrictions may be justified in the short term, but it is time to calm down and re-assess the risks of various items which may be carried in hand baggage. If not, then I would contend that the freedoms Commissar Reid claims to be defending are being eroded. Some would say that has already been the case.

Edit to clarify after thread merge.

[ivor toolbox]

Originally Posted by fireflybob

speedtapeking - well said!

There is always safety in numbers so flight crew and engineers need to team up to raise objections at the highest level that our professional roles with repect to flight safety are being compromised due to "security".

Indeed well said Mr Speedtapeking.

I think this subject has already been subject of many a chirp report.

How's this for a stupid situation then, where I work our cosy office is landside, aircraft airside of course, security screen in between,
and toolboxes not allowed past this point again! (Not even in van through vehicle entrance "we know where you work")

Think we should all take a day or two off citing stress and undue distraction under AWN 47

[BusyB]

Aeropig 1

I know you're speaking with the best of intentions, however,

"security on a national and local level has to evolve and it does."

How long did it take to allow crew to carry nailclippers?

[Aeropig1]

Evryone is calm Micro, and awaiting the investigation results before making decisions - a sensible move in the circumstances

[Aeropig1]

BusyB, some airports allow them. the most unsatisfactory thing to me is that airport operators can interpret the regulations from the govt. A case of 'its my airport so my rules'. Many of us are pushing for standardisation on this front and we are getting there. The problem is that when big events happen the small things get put back. Not perfect but we are getting there

[40KTSOFFOG]

The London Underground has been a known target area for the last 5 years. Following the July 2005 bombings on the Underground there have been no mandated searches, no screening and no luggage checks. Why? Because too many people use the system and the 'powers that be' dictate that to do so would be unworkable. How can it be that security check's be appropriate for one mode of transport ,and not for another, if safety is paramount!!!!!!!!!!!
I grew up in London during the IRA London bombings inthe 70's. When off to the city for a night on the tile's, my father offered the very sageful advise of "stand behind a pillar". I still consider that a very intelligent piece of advise.
We have to accept that the world we live in is a dangerouse place, for a whole host of reasons, and I for believe that we have a choice how to live it. I am quite prepared to live with the possibility that some may be trying to kill me, but am getting very dispondant at the lenghts that others are going too, to try to keep me alive. There is such a thing as quality of life and I am getting very hacked off at the way my QUALITY (not quantity) of life is being eroded by these .

[Aeropig1]

Originally Posted by 40KTSOFFOG

How can it be that security check's be appropriate for one mode of transport ,and not for another, if safety is paramount!!!!!!!!!!!

Personal view but probably risk management. If a tube is bombed then the damage is confined to the tube and its occupants if a plane is blown up over a built up area the casuallty rate is potentially far higher so to manage the risk you increase the protection. I stress this is a personal view!

[rhovsquared]

don't get me wrong, such security for pax in light of this recent incident is [unfortunately] required, but as for aircrew leave them out of this THEY ARE NOT PAX...I feel if they want they should also be entitled to carry a pistol.
I feel such sec. checks on pilots IS ludicrous they are official agents of the aircarrier who hold valid licenses and identification of the airline for which they fly, such idiocy. I feel interfering with the boarding of aircrew scares passengers even further, delays flight, stresses aircrew -as if flying weren't stressful enough at times-And worst of all uses scarce sec. resources that NEED to be spent looking for REAL and Tangible threats... the aircrew is being held up by security while Osama Bin Laden is in ROW 12B

[Jockflyer]

Aeropig1, please tell me the logic behind not letting flight crew through security with a bottle of water and a packet of Jellybabies.
If flight crew want to kill the pax, you could put us onboard naked, and we could do it easily, so why have stupid rules about Jellybabes?



JF

[BusyB]

Aeropig1,

Thanks for the response but as you're no doubt aware it was the principle I was concerned with. If the aircrew side was considered at all when these precautions were planned (they can't be off the cuff) they would not be so
unnecessarily obstructive to aircrew. There is obviously no aircrew input (there is an IFALPA security team you know) and this attitude from the security branch is not acceptable. I have had several discussions with my own company's security dept due inadequate security at some airports so don't think that aircrew are unaware of security requirements, we sometimes have to consider items that you don't.

[Aeropig1]

sevral terrorists have held valid licences. Infiltration is a well known MO and aviation is as vulnerable as any other industry. There are many incidents of airline 'agents' and crew causing security incidents and some leading to mass loss of life. The reason that crew are searched to the same level as pax is that protection has to be given to all in the air and on the ground. Crew are human and as such are open to coercsion extremist views and disaffection as anybody else and to suggest that it could never happen is frankly naieve.

As for firearms, they wont helpwith a bomb. If there is a need for firearms should the crew have them or should the trained polices 'skymarshals' have them whilst the crew fly the plane?

[BusyB]

I wonder how many police and security passes go missing (lost, stolen etc) every year?

[Jockflyer]

Aeropig1, come on, answer my question.

In fact, I extend the opportunity to anyone to give me a good reason.

[Aeropig1]

Busy B, my life is spent visiting airfields and crew hotels looking at security and we take crews comments very seriously hence me sitting here trying to put a different perspective rather than watch the telly! All the security departments I deal with take crew comments very seriously and where appropriate, pressure has been applied and rules changed. Like many things when you look at something from the outside you do not see what happens on the inside. My point was that we are trying to standardise what does and does not go through the airports because that makes life easier for evryone. One other point. The European commission now has a say in what can and cant go on aircraft so it is not always HMG's doing. this is a team effort and at airline level we have to consider crew,commercial, ops, ground services and the passengers. All are vital to getting it right and if we dont we have to adjust. Government have a wider brief and things important to individuals may not be as high on the priority list as other things in their picture. Hope this explains.

JF- there is no intelligence to my knowledge of naked pilots bringing the plane down. When there is I,m sure you will be among the first to know! the mind shudders at the thought

[Ron & Edna Johns]

The fundamental problem is that security cannot tell the difference between a real pilot who is authorised to operate a certain flight from that airport, and an imposter. They don't have time, nor does the system exist, to check that your ID is the real thing and not an elaborate forgery.

The answer lies in separating aircrew from public screening points completely. Reconcile that the people presenting are indeed the the authorised crew for flight XXyyy. Screen them and take them directly airside to their respective aircraft. Under such a system we may then carry additional items that public otherwise may not - operational items or items that support us during long TOD's. If you have to go through public screening points for any reason, unreconciled, then you should be screened to the same standard.

All this relies on management wanting to work solutions for their aircrew staff. It would be complex to do this right and will take time, resources. Unfortunately down here, down under, QF management have such contempt for its pilot staff that they frankly couldn't give a toss. Perhaps I should be a bit optimistic and give this some time to settle, but it's hard to see light at the end of the tunnel. I feel Aus is on the verge of implementing the same draconian procedures.

Yesterday for the first time in my flying career, I gave genuine thought to resigning......

[Aeropig1]

In serious response JF, the principle appears to be that no fluids or gel substances that have not been controlled are being allowed through. I do not know what the intelligence basis for this is but it was not made on a whim. The substance widely being talked about is very powerful, in fact 25ml was used in the attack on the Phillipines 747 in the 90's

The gel and liquid, I would assume, were the most likely forms for the alleged explosives hance the ban. I understand that on non US flights you can now purchase food items airside and take them on the aircraft. Risk managed as the person taking it on the plane has no control over it until that point.

Hope that helps

[Jockflyer]

Thats a crap answer, and you know it. There is no justification for it. Why don't you just say its ridiculous to subject flight deck to these restrictions.

[Aeropig1]

which answer?

[RoyHudd]

Rubbish

Aeropig, give one example of a convicted or proven terrorist who has held a "valid" licence. And state which licence you are referring to. What do you mean by valid? A licence is rarely required to pass through security. It's a Security Pass.

Just ignorant waffle, I'm sad to say, like so many contributions to this thread.