Airport Security (Merged) - Effects on Crew/Staff

[Loose rivets]

Originally Posted by BigWhiteRat

- it's not that everyone wants to demean you because "You're a pilot" or "You're aircrew" - it's not lets bring them down a peg or two.

In three words - IT'S NOT PERSONAL

After witnessing 40 years of the profession being degraded to that of a laborer, I have learned to recognize a snigger thank you.

However, I agree wholeheartedly with....

Everyone in the airline industry is in the same flooding boat and it would help if EVERYONE bails the water out.

[xetroV]

Originally Posted by BigWhiteRat

Everyone in the airline industry is in the same flooding boat and it would help if EVERYONE bails the water out.

Problem is: current so-called "security measures" achieve the opposite, bailing the water in.

[BOAC]

Well, I made it through CWL yesterday with the necessary equipment to operate a European (NB not US carrier transatlantic) flight, pushing past my poor passengers with their pitiful plastic bags (who thought 'it was all over'), dutifully removed my shoes (yes, the same ones I might use to tweak the rudder pedals on my aircraft to ensure an accurate line up on my deathly dive onto my 'target'), but:-

1) CWL has withdrawn the dedicated 'crew' screening area - against the DofT guidelines - why?

2) Our flight boarded at FNC for the return, as do all European return flights, with the usual enormous volume of carry on bags, laptops, mobiles (one assumes also bottles of highly explosive liquids) etc, and then overflew the south western UK (and who knew we were not actually planning to overfly London and dive into Buckingham Palace with our biros?) on its way to CWL.

If we have to knee-jerk in a senseless fashion to US paranoia over supposed attacks on 3 US tranatlantic carriers, why do we not have ALL UK airports operating such flights made to institute dedicated check-in/screening as El Al have done for years? They understood 'the threat' and reacted in a timely and sensible manner.

There is no logic in what Genghis says about the time required to 'activate' a new security ruling - any management worth its title would have

a) seen this coming
b) had a plan in place to notify the oncoming shift of the changes - a matter of hours at the maximum
c) ensured uniformity in the first place in the application of the rules

I await ?news? of the efforts of our pilot unions/associations in having this state of dementure sorted out. I generally abhor 'public enquiries' but feel we need some analysis of this.

I will never deny we need security for our passengers on their flights - I want it very much for me and my crew too. We just need it done sensibly and in a way that recognises practicalities and allows the industry to turn its wheels.

As a 'footnote' I was warned by the handling agent as I left the aircraft at CWL to return home that I might need to remove my shoes to re-enter the airport from the apron?

[BOAC]

Once again, posters are advised that IAW Danny's warning at posts #158 and 184 and my reminder at #395, this thread is being kept focussed as best as we can on issues affecting crew. Other posts are either deleted or moved to http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=238932 or are in http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=238387 which has now been closed.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

I may have misread or misunderstood some of the recent posts but, correct me if I'm wrong (and you usually do!); the 2 main binds are:

a the driver having the same constraints as the self-loaders. The driver, if so minded, being able to convert an aeroplane into a guided missile, even if stark bo**ock naked and without carry-ons.

b even low risk PAX/Crews on low risk routes are being screened.

A little trip into paranoia can provide a scenario where a low risk body could be coerced to carry devices/substances to hand over to a high risk body, airside. Something like, "pass this on to Mr X and the next time you see your wife and kids, they may not be in a number of plastic bags". Outrageously far fetched but there are some really nasty buggers out there. Just a thought, for what it's worth.

I do agree that we will do the Terr's job for him if we overreact to events.

[MReyn24050]

Originally Posted by BOAC

Once again, posters are advised that IAW Danny's warning at posts #158 and 184 and my reminder at #395, this thread is being kept focussed as best as we can on issues affecting crew. Other posts are either deleted or moved to http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=238932 or are in http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=238387 which has now been closed.

BOAC forgive me for posting this but after 50 years in the aviation industry I just felt I had to express my feelings.
I am totally amazed, as I am sure all people in the airline industry are, that the industry is still being subjected to knee-jerk reactions as far as airline security is concerned. What amazes me most, from what I have read, is the way that you, the Air Crew, are being treated. I just cannot believe that you are being put through such ridiculous, insulting and futile procedures. Surely there is somebody in the security chain with some common sense to see the damage all this is causing to the industry.
This year is as we all know is the fifth anniversary of 9/11 and yet passenger profiling is nowhere nearer being introduced. I am sure that this is all to do with the Government being scared of being accused of introducing discriminatory profiling. However I do not think that race, religion or national origin are factors. I feel that the factors that should be considered are frequency of travel to certain destinations, the reason for the passenger’s journey, whether the passenger is a member of the airline’s frequent flyer program, and whether the ticket was bought with cash or a credit card. I am sure that terrorists would not participate in a program or use methods of payment that would reveal aspects of their identity.
Any profiling system should focus on those who are more likely to pose a threat, elderly women, disabled passengers, and children, are not the sort of people who are likely to pose a terrorist threat.
Passengers who fit the profile would I am sure never know that they had been selected. With the correct use of computers and experienced security personnel it should be possible to screen passengers, after all they must all have purchased a ticket or had a ticket purchased on their behalf, and then identify those that require subjection to additional security at the entry into the departure lounge and again when boarding.
I believe work is under way in the USA to establish a computer network linking every reservation system in the U.S. to private and government databases. It is intended that the computer network would use data-mining and predictive software to profile passengers and look for potential threats. Whether that is practical I have no idea but something has to be done before the whole of the airline industry grinds to a halt.
Sorry just the views of a grumpy old man.

[Globaliser]

Originally Posted by Nearly Nigel

I feel I should be trusted. Simple as that.

If I am not, then why do they let me fly the darned things?

Speaking as SLF, I'm very happy to trust you.

But I'm not happy to trust the security screeners to reliably identify every person who is aircrew, and every person who is not aircrew but who is pretending to be.

[scroggs]

What difference does it make? If they get through security masquerading as a pilot, they still don't need anything extra to kill you!

[Globaliser]

Originally Posted by scroggs

What difference does it make? If they get through security masquerading as a pilot, they still don't need anything extra to kill you!

I was rather hoping that even those masquerading as pilots wouldn't actually get onto the flight deck, and that the operating pilots might just recognise an interloper.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Perhaps, just perhaps, we should return to an idea that I heard talked about maybe half a dozen years ago. Rather than initially concentrating upon the suspicious characters, concentrate initially upon those who aren't.

It's a reasonable bet, for example, that company aircrew, government ministers, serving members of your own police and armed forces will not try and do anything stupid that'll endanger an aircraft. If there can be some form of ID/vetting scheme to fast-track these people (and maybe we can apply for an opt-in to such a scheme) - albeit still with some reasonable security checking, it would free up the security officials to concentrate upon those who can't make such proof. This has an added advantage that you aren't targetting particular ethnic groups quite so visibily (okay, you might be, but not visibly).

G

[Genghis the Engineer]

Originally Posted by Globaliser

I was rather hoping that even those masquerading as pilots wouldn't actually get onto the flight deck, and that the operating pilots might just recognise an interloper.

They wouldn't need to would they, just in contact with somebody boarding the aeroplane to pass stuff to them.

G

[beaver eager]

Originally Posted by Globaliser

I was rather hoping that even those masquerading as pilots wouldn't actually get onto the flight deck, and that the operating pilots might just recognise an interloper.

A 'proper' check of suitability (not this stupid Disclosure Scotland nonsense which could render you 'unsuitable' for an airside pass if you have a punch-up in a pub - what's that got to do with terrorism FFS?) and the issuing of a 'proper' airside pass with microchip and biometric data included would render the chance of an interloper getting through as almost impossible.

Oh! But that would cost money. Hang on.... Doesn't Disclosure Scotland cost money too?

[chandlers dad]

Originally Posted by Globaliser

Speaking as SLF, I'm very happy to trust you.
But I'm not happy to trust the security screeners to reliably identify every person who is aircrew, and every person who is not aircrew but who is pretending to be.

Once the pilots make it through the security BS, they then proceed to the gate. They are met with a ramp agent who has a list of flight crew assigned to each flight. Their names are checked off with the list and each flight crew member must show a company ID. Without this they are not allowed on the flight, no matter what ID or uniform they have.

Someone could buy, steal or make a uniform, scrounge some wings and epaulette's and bodge up a fake ID, but once inside security they would never be allowed on an airplane as their name is not on the list, with one exception. There are times that I travel in uniform (going home and too tired or no time to change) and am let on the airplane only because I have a valid ticket. You have two choices to get on the plane, as certified flight crew or SLF with a ticket.

As well for some silly reason walking down the jetway my epaulette's usually dissappear into my pocket. Usually has something with needing to have an adult beverage on the way home...

[beaver eager]

Originally Posted by chandlers dad

Once the pilots make it through the security BS, they then proceed to the gate. They are met with a ramp agent who has a list of flight crew assigned to each flight. Their names are checked off with the list and each flight crew member must show a company ID. Without this they are not allowed on the flight, no matter what ID or uniform they have.

Funnily enough, this is already what seems to be in place when passing through security at Italian nightstops. The single policeman sitting at the scanner, who then waves us through (some of the time, at least) without checking us closely when we set the metal detector arch off, appears to check our names off against a list on a piece of paper he has.

Presumably these are local procedures insisted upon by the Italian authorities, but they seem to work and allow a more er 'pragmatic' approach to crew search procedures.

I would advocate such measures be put in place for all flights where the crew have a need to pass through security. This could easily then be extended to include crew on positioning flights too.

It can't be that difficult to implement as they seem able to cope in Italy and, of course, have to supply the names of every passenger too on flights to the USA. Again - no problem when the alternative would be to cancel the flights and just shut up shop.

If only they cared about their crews as much as their profits.

[Halfnut]

http://aviationplanning.com/asrc1.htm

TSA's Rule: No Shirt. No Shoes. Now You Can Fly

US Aviation Security: Stupidity As An Art Form

There's no doubt about it. The bad guys are planning to hit us again.

The foiled UK plot is just one example. Not particularly sophisticated, but still an indication of a deeply-organized threat. Then we have the clowns running into Wal-Mart, buying, say, 100 cell phones, thinking that it won't be noticed. Again, an indication of very unsophisticated people, but still, people who want to kill us. On the eve of the fifth anniversary of 9/11, there's lots of "noise."

There's also the clear indication that the US aviation system is a sitting duck.

We've spent what, $15 billion? $20 billion? on "security" and all we have to show for it is an enormous bureaucracy, and a growing industry of politicians and bureaucrats like Kean and Hamilton writing books on the subject.

But, in light of the latest threat - liquid explosives - our intrepid Department of Homeland Security has implemented the ultimate counter-measures: Ban anything wet on the airplane. No water bottles. No hairspray. No deodorants, No toothpaste. No lip gloss. No mascara.

It's a breakthrough on the war on terror: Counter 'em with bad hygiene.

The Sheep Are Buying It. And, we've already seen Angie Airhead, the 6PM News reporter, on the scene at the airport, interviewing passengers stuck in hour-long screening lines:
Angie: How do you feel about these new security measures?

Traveler, standing tall, strong, and looking with great determination into the camera: "If it promotes the war on terror, I'll gladly give up my tube of Pepsodent!"


The only thing it promotes, moron, is tooth decay.

Some folks, reading and hearing the news, would jump right in and agree with the soon-to-be toothless wonder in that security line: Yeah, but if they're gonna use liquid explosives, whaddya suggest we do?"

We'll start with this: The US airport system is a sieve. The ramp areas are about as secure as an unlocked Lexus in the South Bronx. Those guys working on the taxiway? The people cleaning the airplanes? The people slopping the special sauce in the burger joints in the sterile area? The catering truck, and the people driving it? We covered it weeks ago - it's a fact, regardless of the blatant lies coming out of the TSA.

The point is that if really sophisticated terrorists want to get stuff onto the ramp at big airports, they probably can. So taking a bottle of make-up foundation away from mamma isn't going to do diddly to counter terrorism.

Next, these are suicide terrorists, remember. They aren't too concerned with where the explosives are, just as long as they go boom at the right time. So, they can put this stuff into their checked suitcases, conveniently cloaked and disguised as a bottle of cough syrup. True, when in the mixed and ready state, most of the typical street-variety explosive liquid substances can be unstable. But that covers the less sophisticated, learned-it-off-the-web variety of terrorist. A more erudite virgin-seeker may use more stable varieties of explosives. And, they can be set off remotely while the terrorist is comfortably seated in first class.

So Here We React, Again. The negligent people running the TSA have ignored the threat of liquid explosive detection for years. Right after 9/11, technologies were discussed that could ascertain if that bottle in the Samsonite was mouthwash, nitro, or a bottle of cheap hooch. But the TSA ignored them, because the TSA is a political bureaucracy run by incompetents who have had no anticipatory plan to counter anything.

Prime Example: Richard Reid sticks explosives in his shoe. The TSA reacts by requiring shoes to be put through a metal detector. A metal detector that can't detect explosives.

So, now we're all going to be sitting on airplanes, with no chapstick, no make-up, no lip gloss, and no mascara. Unless the terrorist is a part-time hooker, this won't do anything except make the coach cabin even less attractive.

Cell Phones & Laptops Next. The TSA's idea of security is "target removal" - not counter-measures to protect our way of life. The idea is that if something can conceivably be used as a terrorist device, or if something might be a target, the philosophy is to simply remove it. It's like circling the wagons tighter and tighter to make a smaller target. Not defending territory, but ceding it to terrorism.

Remember, too, that Kip Hawley, Michael Chertoff and the rest of these security cub scouts have no plan, no goals, no ideas about what to do next. So jumping into that intellectual vacuum we have the congressional likes of Reps Markey, Wyden, and Israel, et al., all of whom have their own crackpot, short-term, and generally inept ideas of how security should look.

Almost certainly, the next thrust will be to ban all carry-on. And that will zap the airline industry. Forget the gooey patriotic pap about how "Americans will do what they must to adjust to new security measures.." That's a load of yogurt. First, what we see today are not security measures. They are the actions of government officials who are totally clueless and essentially are having their strings pulled by events.

Secondly, a laptop is now a necessary business tool. They are devices that cannot handle the stress of normal baggage handling. Plus, there is a theft problem at the TSA that has popped up at a number of airports across the country. Finally, if a passenger has to wait in the baggage claim area for 30 minutes to get his or her cell phone back, that isn't going to fly, literally.

Banning all carry-on, particularly laptops and cell phones, will fundamentally alter the value and the utility of air travel for a significant portion of the flying public. Don't buy into the stuff about, "... well, we didn't have 'em thirty years ago..." That's precisely right. This isn't thirty years ago.

Run, People, Run. Instead of making us safer by crafting anticipative counter-measures to terrorism, and instead of developing programs that protect and defend our way of life, Chertoff, Hawley, and - deal with it - the entire Bush Administration have no plan except to have us run faster and faster away whenever there's a threat.

Another terrorist attack - on a plane, at an airport, in a subway, on a pipeline, wherever - is, unfortunately inevitable. The lack of planning and the lack of expertise in place that DHS and TSA nearly guarantee it.

We know the problem. We know the real threat. It's us.

[chandlers dad]

Originally Posted by beaver eager

Funnily enough, this is already what seems to be in place when passing through security at Italian nightstops. The single policeman sitting at the scanner, who then waves us through (some of the time, at least) without checking us closely when we set the metal detector arch off, appears to check our names off against a list on a piece of paper he has.

Presumably these are local procedures insisted upon by the Italian authorities, but they seem to work and allow a more er 'pragmatic' approach to crew search procedures.

I would advocate such measures be put in place for all flights where the crew have a need to pass through security. This could easily then be extended to include crew on positioning flights too.

It can't be that difficult to implement as they seem able to cope in Italy and, of course, have to supply the names of every passenger too on flights to the USA. Again - no problem when the alternative would be to cancel the flights and just shut up shop.

If only they cared about their crews as much as their profits.

Send a list of approved crewmembers, or hand carry it down to each security checkpoint. If someone is not on the list, then they can either call ops and get a revised copy sent down or go through the entire security process.

Seems simple and would speed things up. Thats why the idiots will never do it.

[BOAC]

CD - I proposed this at Post #378 (doesn't time fly when you are having fun ) and spoke to my IPA man who said the system had been 'in place' 'for ages' but.............well..........no-one seems to do it in the UK.

[chandlers dad]

Originally Posted by BOAC

CD - I proposed this at Post #378 (doesn't time fly when you are having fun ) and spoke to my IPA man who said the system had been 'in place' 'for ages' but.............well..........no-one seems to do it in the UK.

Sure not doing it in the states either, so might be worth an email to the IPA guy again. Something needs to change and hope we figure something out and soon.

[BOAC]

I'll try - maybe the BALPA guys can try there too? I have severe doubts whether the lunatics causing this chaos for crews will accept any sensible inputs, though.

[chandlers dad]

Originally Posted by BOAC

I'll try - maybe the BALPA guys can try there too? I have severe doubts whether the lunatics causing this chaos for crews will accept any sensible inputs, though.

Make it easy for them to understand. Stop paying your dues then they will wake up that they need to represent the pilots that they are charging each and every month for REPRESENTATION. I have a dim sense of unions anyway (they are a needed evil... at times) but them living on our money every month while doing nothing until being forced to do so is not my idea of a good cause.

Wish you luck, you have a lot of us standing behind you and this idea.