Airport Security (Merged) - Effects on Crew/Staff
Profiling staff
My understanding of what signifies a "risk" passenger includes the folllowing;
Male passenger travelling alone, one way ticket(s), unusual travel patterns and routes, hand baggage only.
Now my problem is that this is also the perfect profile of the average staff ID90 traveller (albeit not just males). I am quite serious, I've had grief over this several times before despite being a low profile and law abiding type.
I know for a fact that a certain large US carrier automatically asigns all standby staff pax for "enhanced security check" which are meant to be random! You end up in the "special" queue with other staff pax!
To the uneducated much of our lifestyles/travel/commuting can seem unusual and the expression "I'm crew" can just make matters worse.
I've had the pre check in profiling that US carriers use overseas. Some half wit (not them all) asks you some stupid questions that he clearly doesn't understand. He does seems to enjoy the amateur Sherlock Holmes act though. "Are you carrying any electronic items?" "Yes, my phone". "And is it your phone?"
Male passenger travelling alone, one way ticket(s), unusual travel patterns and routes, hand baggage only.
Now my problem is that this is also the perfect profile of the average staff ID90 traveller (albeit not just males). I am quite serious, I've had grief over this several times before despite being a low profile and law abiding type.
I know for a fact that a certain large US carrier automatically asigns all standby staff pax for "enhanced security check" which are meant to be random! You end up in the "special" queue with other staff pax!
To the uneducated much of our lifestyles/travel/commuting can seem unusual and the expression "I'm crew" can just make matters worse.
I've had the pre check in profiling that US carriers use overseas. Some half wit (not them all) asks you some stupid questions that he clearly doesn't understand. He does seems to enjoy the amateur Sherlock Holmes act though. "Are you carrying any electronic items?" "Yes, my phone". "And is it your phone?"
Last edited by Consol; 22nd Aug 2006 at 13:03.
Originally Posted by Consol
I know for a fact that a certain large US carrier automatically asigns all standby staff pax for "enhanced security check" which are meant to be random! You end
In other words, expend your officiousness on a minimal (if not zero) risk travelling segment instead of triaging intelligently. (The latter in the same breath as "TSA" admittedly an oxymoron...)
Go figure
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Lyon
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The comments about the futility of security checks for flight crew miss the point slightly. Of course no pilot needs exploding toothpaste or incendiary lipstick to become a "martyr", but when flight crew and passengers can mingle freely after going through security, as they can at most airports, there can be no argument for not subjecting flight crew to the same controls as passengers.
What matters is that those security controls should be appropriate and consistent. They should also logically take place immediately prior to the passengers boarding the aircraft, in which case controls of flight crew would indeed be superfluous.
What matters is that those security controls should be appropriate and consistent. They should also logically take place immediately prior to the passengers boarding the aircraft, in which case controls of flight crew would indeed be superfluous.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Up in the air
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Adrian N
The comments about the futility of security checks for flight crew miss the point slightly. Of course no pilot needs exploding toothpaste or incendiary lipstick to become a "martyr", but when flight crew and passengers can mingle freely after going through security, as they can at most airports, there can be no argument for not subjecting flight crew to the same controls as passengers.
What matters is that those security controls should be appropriate and consistent. They should also logically take place immediately prior to the passengers boarding the aircraft, in which case controls of flight crew would indeed be superfluous.
What matters is that those security controls should be appropriate and consistent. They should also logically take place immediately prior to the passengers boarding the aircraft, in which case controls of flight crew would indeed be superfluous.
The security staff need to spend their time profiling, then searching passengers who need searching. Give us a quick once over to make sure that we are not carrying a claymore on the airplane and get on with checking the people who have been the security issue with every aircraft bombing in the past, the SLF!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking as a humble PAX, and I'm no doubt going to be flamed for saying this ... but searching flight deck crew and others who go airside is not about the fact that you have at your disposal a huge pointy flying weapon. Rather it's to make sure that you haven't been co-erced into taking something airside and giving it to someone less well intentioned.
If you remove/limit/cut back flight desk crew searches, then the bad guy has an easy route to get stuff on board (and not necessarily your flight) by snatching your pet poodle Snaffles and threatening to do him harm unless you co-operate. Or worse.
In other words, less security implies a point of weakness in the overall picture that *could* be exploited. Short of checking everybody I'm not quite sure how you can eliminate this threat. And yes, logically that means that *anyone* going airside on an "honesty" ticket should be subject to the same procedures which I presume (Police etc.) they aren't. So there is a warped logic behind the process, but you cannot claim, as some respondants do, a special exemption for your trade based on a specious argument.
Retiring to bunker to don flameproof trousers ... ;-)
Duncan
If you remove/limit/cut back flight desk crew searches, then the bad guy has an easy route to get stuff on board (and not necessarily your flight) by snatching your pet poodle Snaffles and threatening to do him harm unless you co-operate. Or worse.
In other words, less security implies a point of weakness in the overall picture that *could* be exploited. Short of checking everybody I'm not quite sure how you can eliminate this threat. And yes, logically that means that *anyone* going airside on an "honesty" ticket should be subject to the same procedures which I presume (Police etc.) they aren't. So there is a warped logic behind the process, but you cannot claim, as some respondants do, a special exemption for your trade based on a specious argument.
Retiring to bunker to don flameproof trousers ... ;-)
Duncan
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Up in the air
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Duncan,
Not a problem. If we are going to use this argument that someone "may be turned" then please also figure into your program that we are also going to have to "re-qualify" EVERY policeman, security person, ramp agent, mechanic, airport official and so on into the plan. Anyone at the airport could as well be turned and thus forced into allowing something to be brought onto the airplane.
Case in point is that the police are not required to be searched upon arriving at the airport, are allowed to carry guns and other weapons EVERYWHERE in the airport and are just as likely to be "turned," yet you are not afraid of them. Why? They are just as human as we are!
Your argument that someone is going to do anything to my family or poodle (which I do not own), and in turn get me to either fly an airplane into a building, or allow someone onboard my jet to then assemble a bomb that brings the airplane down, is simply crazy. Please also add to the fact that I would be onboard the jet and I am not ready to go just yet. In the event that this were to happen, I would simply pick up the phone, call the police and very quickly the airplane and my house would be surrounded. Part or all of my family might be harmed or die but I would never give in to terrorists, period.
I am not saying that it gets to the point where the flight crew are never searched. Do random searches on them and do a simple X-ray search of their hand luggage but going through their bag piece by piece looking for nail clippers or lipstick is simply a waste of time. Use this time to do proper search's on people who have shown a history of causing harm to airplanes, the SLF!
Please stop looking at the flight crew as potential terrorists! We are on the same team as the security people and police and need to be treated as such. Most of us have done this for a while (I started flying in 1973) and this is my life and world. You as the flying public have trusted us for over 100 years now and there is no reason to change this outlook now.
Not a problem. If we are going to use this argument that someone "may be turned" then please also figure into your program that we are also going to have to "re-qualify" EVERY policeman, security person, ramp agent, mechanic, airport official and so on into the plan. Anyone at the airport could as well be turned and thus forced into allowing something to be brought onto the airplane.
Case in point is that the police are not required to be searched upon arriving at the airport, are allowed to carry guns and other weapons EVERYWHERE in the airport and are just as likely to be "turned," yet you are not afraid of them. Why? They are just as human as we are!
Your argument that someone is going to do anything to my family or poodle (which I do not own), and in turn get me to either fly an airplane into a building, or allow someone onboard my jet to then assemble a bomb that brings the airplane down, is simply crazy. Please also add to the fact that I would be onboard the jet and I am not ready to go just yet. In the event that this were to happen, I would simply pick up the phone, call the police and very quickly the airplane and my house would be surrounded. Part or all of my family might be harmed or die but I would never give in to terrorists, period.
I am not saying that it gets to the point where the flight crew are never searched. Do random searches on them and do a simple X-ray search of their hand luggage but going through their bag piece by piece looking for nail clippers or lipstick is simply a waste of time. Use this time to do proper search's on people who have shown a history of causing harm to airplanes, the SLF!
Please stop looking at the flight crew as potential terrorists! We are on the same team as the security people and police and need to be treated as such. Most of us have done this for a while (I started flying in 1973) and this is my life and world. You as the flying public have trusted us for over 100 years now and there is no reason to change this outlook now.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DuncanF, if you don't want to be flamed then please read the whole thread and recap on the bit about profiling as opposed to blanket searches. If your pet poodle had been held hostage and you were trying to sneak something airside then a professional profiler, and I don't mean the minimum wage, poorly trained rent-a-screener we have at the moment, then you would be acting in a way that the profiler would consider worthy of further inspection.
The rest of us going about our trusted routine could be left to carry on without the imbeciles telling us that we must have our shoes X-rayed and our lip-salve confiscated. In the meantime though, we will be treated as though we can't be trusted whilst the armed policeman or customs officer can pass through without the detailed search that we are subjected to. I suppose they don't have families or poodles that can be held hostage.
The rest of us going about our trusted routine could be left to carry on without the imbeciles telling us that we must have our shoes X-rayed and our lip-salve confiscated. In the meantime though, we will be treated as though we can't be trusted whilst the armed policeman or customs officer can pass through without the detailed search that we are subjected to. I suppose they don't have families or poodles that can be held hostage.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SW15
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the point re the searching of aircrew is more to do with how security can tell the difference between:
1) genuine aircrew and
2) someone with a uniform and fake documentation impersonating aircrew.
Realistically, they can't. If aircrew are waved through automatically without search, then that is a point of weakness to be exploited by someone with a bit of background knowledge, a decent desktop publisher and access to a fancy dress shop.
1) genuine aircrew and
2) someone with a uniform and fake documentation impersonating aircrew.
Realistically, they can't. If aircrew are waved through automatically without search, then that is a point of weakness to be exploited by someone with a bit of background knowledge, a decent desktop publisher and access to a fancy dress shop.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of these problems for crew could be reduced if crew pass through as a pre-notified unit. I have had a disappointing response from the IPA on progressing this idea (in fact, sadly, very little at all from them) and BALPA do not seem to have picked up on it. It would practically eliminate the 'counterfeit' crew-member plot. Now we are left with the crew-member 'under duress' problem. As others have said, skilled profiling/obseravtion should pick out these, plus the rest of the crew, and obviously police and customs are in the same potential danger zone and need attention as well.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10bob,
I take your point, but airport cards for most employees are not just printed cards but are swipe cards that (when swiped) are capable of providing data including a photograph on security screens: desktop publishing cannot overcome properly controlled security cards.
FB
I take your point, but airport cards for most employees are not just printed cards but are swipe cards that (when swiped) are capable of providing data including a photograph on security screens: desktop publishing cannot overcome properly controlled security cards.
FB
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chandlers Dad,
I don't suggest that they may coerce you into doing the deed yourself or to turn a blind eye to someone else on your aircraft doing something. There is no "upside" for you in that arrangement. However to take something through to handover to another to another person boarding a different flight where you and your poodle finish unharmed may be an offer that you couldn't refuse.
Danny,
I'm not suggesting that other trades moving airside should go through with impunity, far from it. I acknowledge that the current arrangments are far from comprehensive/even handed. I just point out that "I'm in a position of trust so I should be trusted" cannot be a rational basis for an argument to remove checks from *any* group of people with regular access airside.
Your point about profiling makes sense. A mechanism like the customs have currently where their training and experience help them select good targets for checking would narrow the coercion loophole. Good point. One would hope that BAA would talk to the customs people and find out how it's done. Hmmm.
Duncan
I don't suggest that they may coerce you into doing the deed yourself or to turn a blind eye to someone else on your aircraft doing something. There is no "upside" for you in that arrangement. However to take something through to handover to another to another person boarding a different flight where you and your poodle finish unharmed may be an offer that you couldn't refuse.
Danny,
I'm not suggesting that other trades moving airside should go through with impunity, far from it. I acknowledge that the current arrangments are far from comprehensive/even handed. I just point out that "I'm in a position of trust so I should be trusted" cannot be a rational basis for an argument to remove checks from *any* group of people with regular access airside.
Your point about profiling makes sense. A mechanism like the customs have currently where their training and experience help them select good targets for checking would narrow the coercion loophole. Good point. One would hope that BAA would talk to the customs people and find out how it's done. Hmmm.
Duncan
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: EGYD
Posts: 1,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pilots are also calling for an end to the blanket measures which broadly subject them to the same restrictions as passengers.
10 Bob-
If they are distinguishing between aircrew why not between anyone with airside access who could place an item for a pax to pick up later?
It's about risk management..
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Finland
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Security screeners acting as censors?
According to one report, it seems that least one security screener is deciding to act as censor for a book just because it mentions Al-Q and other terror / torture events even though the book is 100% legal in the EU (presently, at least!).
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archive...n_samar_7.html
I guess the issue is whether this is just over eagerness or the genus of a policy by airport authorities to pick and mix at what they don't lilke.
Risk for the industry: more passengers get peed off and don't return. Not so practical if crossing the pond but Europe and UK is getting nearer all the time, less hassle for many by train.
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archive...n_samar_7.html
I guess the issue is whether this is just over eagerness or the genus of a policy by airport authorities to pick and mix at what they don't lilke.
Risk for the industry: more passengers get peed off and don't return. Not so practical if crossing the pond but Europe and UK is getting nearer all the time, less hassle for many by train.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Up in the air
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DuncanF
However to take something through to handover to another to another person boarding a different flight where you and your poodle finish unharmed may be an offer that you couldn't refuse.
Your point about profiling makes sense. A mechanism like the customs have currently where their training and experience help them select good targets for checking would narrow the coercion loophole. Good point. One would hope that BAA would talk to the customs people and find out how it's done. Hmmm.
Duncan
Your point about profiling makes sense. A mechanism like the customs have currently where their training and experience help them select good targets for checking would narrow the coercion loophole. Good point. One would hope that BAA would talk to the customs people and find out how it's done. Hmmm.
Duncan
We love our job but on the other hand we also are law abiding people (for the most part) and would do nothing to jeopardise anything to do with the flight. I could care less if it were another airline, cargo airplane or C-150 buzzing around the countryside. We would not do it for anyone.
The Israeli's have used profiling for years and are experts at it. When we get to the point where we concentrate on the device and not the person/people trying to do stupid things like this, then we are going to lose. The sooner we adopt profiling, the better.
CD
PS I still do not have a poodle. Would eat dirt before I got a poodle. They are for dizzy blonde's with big hooters. I am neither!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Devon
Age: 70
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is very easy to say. It has been shown in other circumstances that when loved ones are held hostage, people will in desperation do pretty much anything .
I am puzzled by the focus of terrorrists on aircraft, whilst they might be high profile, if their intent is maximum casualties=maximum impact we can all think of scenarios where this could be acheived far more easily than trying to get devices aboard planes.
I am puzzled by the focus of terrorrists on aircraft, whilst they might be high profile, if their intent is maximum casualties=maximum impact we can all think of scenarios where this could be acheived far more easily than trying to get devices aboard planes.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, but I find this whole 'security' with flight-deck/cabin crew the biggest balls-up. BALPA should be doing something about it. I go to work, fly to some foreign destination, and as there is every chance that the a/c might go tech and I'll get stuck there, I have a basic night-stop kit in my bag. Toothbrush, toothpaste, moisturiser, deodorant, basic make-up and spare contact lenses.
Now because the contact lenses are in liquid, I can't take them on board. And all the other stuff is also taken off me because it's a 'security risk'. So I get to my destination, and hey-ho we go tech and have to night-stop. SO if we can find a shop that's open and sells what we need, I buy replacement everything. Apart from contact lenses. And then of course the next day when we can finally make the return trip, we have to bin everything we've just bought.
Will the company re-imburse us? NO. Will BAA security re-imburse us?? NO!! As a contact lense wearer I'm supposed to carry a spare pair of lenses. Because I can't carry these on board, I have to have a spare pair of glasses. Assuming I didn't wear glasses and only had lenses, would anyone buy me some new glasses so that I comply with pathetic security?!?! Ummm, NO!!
All this talk of 'being turned' is a big what if. These stupid rules don't apply to many others who have airside access, so why are we as crew accepting it? Catering trucks are sealed where they are packed, go through security, and get loaded onto aircraft. The individual meals aren't checked. The individual cans of drink aren't checked. I'm not sure if I totally trust those who pack our catering trucks..... Does anyone?? (Especially after some of our meals were tampered with when we ceased our contract with one company to start up with another caterer!)
Some of our crews have had their home-made, healthy, nutritious meals taken off them at security, because....wait for it..... something like cooked pasta has got water content.... What a load of total and utter s***!!
I really can't believe it has come to this, and we are being treated so badly. Don't go on strike over a pay-rise or lack of, let's all go on strike at having some pathetic, most probably under-educated, ignorant and anally-retentive security person take my lipstick off me, because I might choose to use that to kill the Captain instead of the bloomin fire axe at arms length behind my seat.....
Rant over....... For now!!
Now because the contact lenses are in liquid, I can't take them on board. And all the other stuff is also taken off me because it's a 'security risk'. So I get to my destination, and hey-ho we go tech and have to night-stop. SO if we can find a shop that's open and sells what we need, I buy replacement everything. Apart from contact lenses. And then of course the next day when we can finally make the return trip, we have to bin everything we've just bought.
Will the company re-imburse us? NO. Will BAA security re-imburse us?? NO!! As a contact lense wearer I'm supposed to carry a spare pair of lenses. Because I can't carry these on board, I have to have a spare pair of glasses. Assuming I didn't wear glasses and only had lenses, would anyone buy me some new glasses so that I comply with pathetic security?!?! Ummm, NO!!
All this talk of 'being turned' is a big what if. These stupid rules don't apply to many others who have airside access, so why are we as crew accepting it? Catering trucks are sealed where they are packed, go through security, and get loaded onto aircraft. The individual meals aren't checked. The individual cans of drink aren't checked. I'm not sure if I totally trust those who pack our catering trucks..... Does anyone?? (Especially after some of our meals were tampered with when we ceased our contract with one company to start up with another caterer!)
Some of our crews have had their home-made, healthy, nutritious meals taken off them at security, because....wait for it..... something like cooked pasta has got water content.... What a load of total and utter s***!!
I really can't believe it has come to this, and we are being treated so badly. Don't go on strike over a pay-rise or lack of, let's all go on strike at having some pathetic, most probably under-educated, ignorant and anally-retentive security person take my lipstick off me, because I might choose to use that to kill the Captain instead of the bloomin fire axe at arms length behind my seat.....
Rant over....... For now!!
Lady Lexxington
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Manor House
Age: 43
Posts: 1,145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Booty if you wear the dailie (sp?) contct lenses, as a pax you can take enough spares for the duration of the flight, ie one to two pairs. Is this not the case for crew, I've left my what is acceptable for ground staff list at work. I do recall it includes the phrase "an empty water bottle which you can fill airside." (If your company has had the foresight to provide a water fountain, but how are they supposed to refil it?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The historians of the future are going to look back at this era with astonishment. Astonishment at what society turned into.... And astonishment at what professionals in the aviation industry became. Down-trodden, distrusted, disrespected, treated like crap. And those professionals - the pilots - just sat there and meekly gave up without a fight. The historians will find it unbelievable and disgusting.
So what are you blokes up there in the UK going to do about it? Continue to just rant about it all on PPrune, or get out there and DO SOMETHING? It's high time you collectively had the cojones to say "ENOUGH"! Why are you continuing to fly under such physical (the nourishment issues) and emotional duress? Is it safe? Of course work with BALPA, but for God's sake, do something!
The rest of the world is watching you guys. What's happening in the UK may well spread like a cancer around the globe. Already parts of Asia are following the UK's example and "tightening security"....
How do you want the historians to judge you?
So what are you blokes up there in the UK going to do about it? Continue to just rant about it all on PPrune, or get out there and DO SOMETHING? It's high time you collectively had the cojones to say "ENOUGH"! Why are you continuing to fly under such physical (the nourishment issues) and emotional duress? Is it safe? Of course work with BALPA, but for God's sake, do something!
The rest of the world is watching you guys. What's happening in the UK may well spread like a cancer around the globe. Already parts of Asia are following the UK's example and "tightening security"....
How do you want the historians to judge you?
Last edited by Ron & Edna Johns; 23rd Aug 2006 at 15:03.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
So what are you blokes up there in the UK going to do about it? Continue to rant on about it on PPrune, or get out there and DO SOMETHING? It's high time you collectively had the cojones to say "ENOUGH"! Of course, do it through BALPA, but for God's sake, do something!
