Airport Security (Merged) - Effects on Crew/Staff
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wow, autoglide, you just don't let it drop. Lots have people have pointed out that you are missing the point. You then come back and prove it once more.
Lots and lots of pilots are saying that some security staff are rude. You are saying that either they are not rude or its the pilots fault. What reaction do you expect from the pilot community to being called liars or even worse...upsetting poor security staff with our bad man management skills. You really should stop posting and buggger off to some website about a subject you know something about. A website on throwing toys may be appropriate.
mfaff, i think you are absolutly right about "identifying the person" philosophy. The old addage that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" seems apt here. Stop the terrorist, not the toothpaste!!
Lots and lots of pilots are saying that some security staff are rude. You are saying that either they are not rude or its the pilots fault. What reaction do you expect from the pilot community to being called liars or even worse...upsetting poor security staff with our bad man management skills. You really should stop posting and buggger off to some website about a subject you know something about. A website on throwing toys may be appropriate.
mfaff, i think you are absolutly right about "identifying the person" philosophy. The old addage that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" seems apt here. Stop the terrorist, not the toothpaste!!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: South of Beirut, North of Aden
Age: 46
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Autoglide, you're so wrong my friend. Worked at a variety of airports and invariably have 50% of my shifts ruined when I arrive at work in a perfectly good mood to be met with an abrupt, rude, insolent security guard whos only interest is to make my transit to the tower hard work. Be it completely de-robing because he cant 'pat' me down in my motorcycle leathers or preventing me taking my Costa coffee in because it may be a dangerous liquid and he/she cant put it through the x'ray machine, to removing my belt when he/she knows full well that is what is making the alarm on the metal detector go off just serves to irritate me (not the process which is required but the manner in which it is carried out).
What is worse the same employees see me 6 days in every 10 and their moods or attitudes never improve. 50% is my rough estimate but it may be more.
Thanks to all security who carry their duties in a profesional manner and to the rest, if you dont like the people or the job, bugger off and stop ruining my day!!!
To all the pilots/cabin crew etc etc who are fed up with the simple task of arriving at work... I sympathise!!!
ATCO fed up of working airside.
What is worse the same employees see me 6 days in every 10 and their moods or attitudes never improve. 50% is my rough estimate but it may be more.
Thanks to all security who carry their duties in a profesional manner and to the rest, if you dont like the people or the job, bugger off and stop ruining my day!!!
To all the pilots/cabin crew etc etc who are fed up with the simple task of arriving at work... I sympathise!!!
ATCO fed up of working airside.
Here we are, taking off shoes and jackets and you try to go through security with protective leather motorcycle clothing??? Sounds like you make life a bit difficult for yourself, and the agent.
I am sure that in another discussion you would argue that the whole airport security thing is futile because half of the agents let you through with said protective leather motorcycle clothing...
I am sure that in another discussion you would argue that the whole airport security thing is futile because half of the agents let you through with said protective leather motorcycle clothing...
Yeah, you need a good memory for those. Memorize a 1000 questions and you're ok. But I am not here to challenge a pilot's or anyone else's intellect, I am sure you can conclude that from my previous post.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Chester
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mfaff
Your earlier posting floated the fanciful notion of an entirely bogus crew – flight deck and cabin crew - somehow appearing in the correct security channel at the correct time with the intention (by extension) of boarding the aircraft.
Quote:
a couple of flight crew and two or three flight attendants.. trying it on as a say a 146 crew...
Not too much problem there...
As for ID.. a simple robbery would give me all the originals I needed.. a good forgery set up would allow me to make all the fake IDs required. Again not a mountain to climb in view of what is wanted.(Unquote)
Realizing that perhaps you’d previously strayed a bit too far, you altered your second scenario to simply getting this entire crew airside to ‘achieve their aims.’ Goalposts are moving but it matters not.
As I said originally, it’s not just a case of getting past security, or up the steps and turning the key as you would a Mondeo. Or in your case a Porsche; the 911 irony duly noted.
You then gave us a lengthy treatise on airport design, ‘functional spaces’, staff routes and access requirements. We progressed from door sizes to ID machines, with increasing heartbeat. Then your carefully worded crescendo suggested to the world that you, Michel, were the airport security expert bar none.
It left me wondering which UK airport terminals you, personally, had any involvement with. Granted you have extensive knowledge in the ‘building trade’ (OK, you’re an architect) and have worked for some decent firms. So far, my search has taken me to the American Air Museum in Duxford but now I’m stuck. Don’t misunderstand me, it’s a fine building with plenty of ‘functional space’ and you’ve every right to be proud of your involvement. I’m sure NF feels the same way. I’d be mildly interested to hear more of your extensive personal aviation security experience, though.
But where is this taking us? As other pilots have said, it’s not the building design we’re criticizing. Indeed, I have a dedicated crew-search point at my home base and would like to see these nationwide - maybe Hamiltons could tender. But that’s not the point. It almost doesn’t matter if my bags are checked or not because, as we know, those doing the checking are sometimes not as alert as they could be. Ignore for the time being that most UK ID cards are time-sensitive, zone sensitive and pin enabled. None of this is sensitive information, by the way.
Here’s the point: once airside, there’s precious little a crew of six can do that isn’t being monitored. Not just by CCTV, but the greatest asset we have – the human intuition of others. First it will be the crew bus driver, asking certain details. And again, you can ignore the presence of other staff. I will omit two sensitive matters that will also ‘get you’.
You are going to face the same human-interface problem with the dispatcher, the engineer, the refueller, the cleaners, the caterer, the push-back crew and probably air traffic. The genuine crew might also be just a little miffed that you’re taking their flight (but don’t count on that!). If you wonder why the caterers, cleaners or any of the others would notice it’s because their lives and ours are based largely on daily repetition. Even the right phrase, at the wrong time, stands out. That’s the great thing about human instinct – we know when something’s not right and have lateral-thinking ability that (your?) card readers don't. Even money on whether the dispatcher or the engineer would make the first call to Ops. Or the original crew. Either way it really is a non-starter.
So what if they have ‘other intentions’? It’s my considered belief that they’d be spotted once airside, especially if they didn’t go to an aircraft. BAA staff are especially hot on certain matters and six crew wandering aimlessly about would ‘show-out’ straight away. ATC, ground staff, security, Mr Plod, tug drivers, baggage handlers, caterers. All have a part to play, and thank God they do.
There are a number of other airside ‘gotchas’ in place which fortunately don’t involve the airport security searchers, which I won’t divulge on an open forum.
You seem on balance to make some reasoned arguments and we probably have similar interests. Aircrew are not suggesting that they should be exempt from all restrictions, as any reasoned observer of these 1000+ posts would gather. It’s just the lack of logic, application and consistency that gets us. Above all else, it’s the belief by those who have nothing to do with aviation that they really do know better because they've watched an episode of 'Airport'.
In fact, Choclit Runway’s post above really does sum it up. Believe me, ATCOs have far greater work-related stress than pilots (usually) and they're one other group who should not go to work wound up.
Your earlier posting floated the fanciful notion of an entirely bogus crew – flight deck and cabin crew - somehow appearing in the correct security channel at the correct time with the intention (by extension) of boarding the aircraft.
Quote:
a couple of flight crew and two or three flight attendants.. trying it on as a say a 146 crew...
Not too much problem there...
As for ID.. a simple robbery would give me all the originals I needed.. a good forgery set up would allow me to make all the fake IDs required. Again not a mountain to climb in view of what is wanted.(Unquote)
Realizing that perhaps you’d previously strayed a bit too far, you altered your second scenario to simply getting this entire crew airside to ‘achieve their aims.’ Goalposts are moving but it matters not.
As I said originally, it’s not just a case of getting past security, or up the steps and turning the key as you would a Mondeo. Or in your case a Porsche; the 911 irony duly noted.
You then gave us a lengthy treatise on airport design, ‘functional spaces’, staff routes and access requirements. We progressed from door sizes to ID machines, with increasing heartbeat. Then your carefully worded crescendo suggested to the world that you, Michel, were the airport security expert bar none.
It left me wondering which UK airport terminals you, personally, had any involvement with. Granted you have extensive knowledge in the ‘building trade’ (OK, you’re an architect) and have worked for some decent firms. So far, my search has taken me to the American Air Museum in Duxford but now I’m stuck. Don’t misunderstand me, it’s a fine building with plenty of ‘functional space’ and you’ve every right to be proud of your involvement. I’m sure NF feels the same way. I’d be mildly interested to hear more of your extensive personal aviation security experience, though.
But where is this taking us? As other pilots have said, it’s not the building design we’re criticizing. Indeed, I have a dedicated crew-search point at my home base and would like to see these nationwide - maybe Hamiltons could tender. But that’s not the point. It almost doesn’t matter if my bags are checked or not because, as we know, those doing the checking are sometimes not as alert as they could be. Ignore for the time being that most UK ID cards are time-sensitive, zone sensitive and pin enabled. None of this is sensitive information, by the way.
Here’s the point: once airside, there’s precious little a crew of six can do that isn’t being monitored. Not just by CCTV, but the greatest asset we have – the human intuition of others. First it will be the crew bus driver, asking certain details. And again, you can ignore the presence of other staff. I will omit two sensitive matters that will also ‘get you’.
You are going to face the same human-interface problem with the dispatcher, the engineer, the refueller, the cleaners, the caterer, the push-back crew and probably air traffic. The genuine crew might also be just a little miffed that you’re taking their flight (but don’t count on that!). If you wonder why the caterers, cleaners or any of the others would notice it’s because their lives and ours are based largely on daily repetition. Even the right phrase, at the wrong time, stands out. That’s the great thing about human instinct – we know when something’s not right and have lateral-thinking ability that (your?) card readers don't. Even money on whether the dispatcher or the engineer would make the first call to Ops. Or the original crew. Either way it really is a non-starter.
So what if they have ‘other intentions’? It’s my considered belief that they’d be spotted once airside, especially if they didn’t go to an aircraft. BAA staff are especially hot on certain matters and six crew wandering aimlessly about would ‘show-out’ straight away. ATC, ground staff, security, Mr Plod, tug drivers, baggage handlers, caterers. All have a part to play, and thank God they do.
There are a number of other airside ‘gotchas’ in place which fortunately don’t involve the airport security searchers, which I won’t divulge on an open forum.
You seem on balance to make some reasoned arguments and we probably have similar interests. Aircrew are not suggesting that they should be exempt from all restrictions, as any reasoned observer of these 1000+ posts would gather. It’s just the lack of logic, application and consistency that gets us. Above all else, it’s the belief by those who have nothing to do with aviation that they really do know better because they've watched an episode of 'Airport'.
In fact, Choclit Runway’s post above really does sum it up. Believe me, ATCOs have far greater work-related stress than pilots (usually) and they're one other group who should not go to work wound up.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Between the land and the sky
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the prospective of a PAX:
I flew on THE 10th August 2006, the day this security was at its highest and the UK was on its highest terrorism level.
I was delayed 3 hours, this is not the point of my post however.
I believe that most of the posters on this thread are vastly over reacting and exaggerating. I went through security at one of the BAA London airports on the 10th August and found no queue for security and friendly staff and was over within about 1 minute in fact.
If it was like this on 10th August and security has been DEcreased slightly since then, I cannot see why you all get so wound up on the issue.
But I do sympathise with the pilots, you should not have to put up with the security when you have the means to cause so much more than some liquid through security checks.
Also, ATC staff should not have to be subject to this intense security especially given the responsibility you actually have and again, if you wanted to cuase carnage it would take just a few words to do so and nothing would stop this.......
Very good thread, interesting reading!
I flew on THE 10th August 2006, the day this security was at its highest and the UK was on its highest terrorism level.
I was delayed 3 hours, this is not the point of my post however.
I believe that most of the posters on this thread are vastly over reacting and exaggerating. I went through security at one of the BAA London airports on the 10th August and found no queue for security and friendly staff and was over within about 1 minute in fact.
If it was like this on 10th August and security has been DEcreased slightly since then, I cannot see why you all get so wound up on the issue.
But I do sympathise with the pilots, you should not have to put up with the security when you have the means to cause so much more than some liquid through security checks.
Also, ATC staff should not have to be subject to this intense security especially given the responsibility you actually have and again, if you wanted to cuase carnage it would take just a few words to do so and nothing would stop this.......
Very good thread, interesting reading!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, ATC staff should not have to be subject to this intense security especially given the responsibility you actually have and again, if you wanted to cuase carnage it would take just a few words to do so and nothing would stop this......
PP
Edited to add that Mike Jenvey correctly pointed out the academic qualification required for employment as a pilot. Maybe it is a memory test, many would argue that it is, but it certainly sorts much of the chaff out at an early stage. Once you manage to get a job you then have to do plenty more bookwork and get tested extensively before you go anywhere near an aircraft with pax on. And then you do your line training, which needs more bookwork and study, including yet again, more memorising of info (perhaps the ATPLs weren't that misconceived after all!) and IF you reach the required standard you will be signed off. I think your academic abilities have been well assessed by the time you fly the line. I don't see any mention of such an indepth criteria on the BAA application for their security staff. Again, not point scoring, merely stating fact in response to the original poster which stated how academically astute all the security staff were that he had experience with.....
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Desperate,
You raised some very good points...and you are right we have a shared aim.
The real issue is that nowhere did I make the link between getting thro security as a 'fake' crew and actually taking an aircraft. Others, including yourself made it and implied that is what I meant. So far from back tracking and changing the goals posts, my scenario was to point out that assumptions made by others were some how inherent to my original post. Not true, whilst I said they were 'fully tooled up to fly' did you ever stop to consider that it is part of their 'crew' disguise...like the uniforms, like the IDs....
Brakedwell made a point that gathering a 'couple of pilots and a dozen cabin crew' was impossible...with the assumption that all they intended to do was to 'take an aircraft'. I retorted that fewer in number could be gathered to pass as 'say a 146 crew'...would Jonny Jobsworth on security be able to challenge that, should he have reason to be suspicious of this crew? Possibly not.
I also attempted to remind people that 'its not possible' has been proven all too possible too often to make that notion an extremely dangerous one, again the example quoted serves that purpose.
You are right that there are too many gotchas, both air and land side that would mean it's highly unlikely that a fake crew could actually take an aircraft.
The issue of this thread is however getting thro the security barrier. And it's the tone adopted by many here that they, as aircrew, ATCOs and others, should not be subject to the treatment they receive at the 'common security' points to airside. They imply..and others have said it more directly, that their 'status' as evidenced by an ID card and a uniform should enable them to be treated differently than the others. I have pointed out that it is far too easy to defeat that.
IDs, even those that are time sensitive, pin-defined are all able to be defeated...the systems that create them are avaliable and can therefore be abused. Gaining that information, and from there being able to find counters to it is not particularly difficult. Again I illustrated the fact that the knowledge is there...being used by many people, it is not a highly confidential matter.
If those same people want to be treated differently, hopefully with greater consideration to their role and with greater consistency, then the best way may be to make sure they are checked in a different fashion, preferably in a different place, by differently trained security staff. Again the aim here is to add a 'gotcha' and close a potential weakness.
In your scenario you have made another assumption...that the fake crew, once thro security, will remain as a group, with the same appearance. Simply removing a jacket, losing a tie, rolling up one's sleeves, a pair of glasses, letting your hair down in the case of a lady and the 'impression' one leaves is completely different...and the crew 'vanishes' in plain sight. And none of this is unreasonable...its not a fantasist world, influenced by too many films...
Much of your 'instinct' then is unusable. Your detailed list of crew bus drivers, dispatchers and so forth is interesting but then potentially irrelevant.
As for the 'increasing crescendo'..interesting coming from somebody whose opening line was a possibly strident 'you don't have the faintest idea'...followed by an accusation of posting 'ignorant nonsense'....and concluded by 'get a some sleep and a reality check'. The overall tone was one of dismissive contempt for somebody who, in your opinion, could not possibly know anything about the subject at all. I think my response illustrated that there is a possibility that by doing what I do I may not be as uneducated as you assume, I may have watched more than one episode of 'Airport' or seen too many James Bond films, equally I might not.
I am however concerned and perhaps somewhat flattered that you have bothered to do so much research about me. What is worrying, at least to me, is that the jumps to conclusions you make following a brief post have not been followed up by a logical joining of the dots following the possibly more in depth research you have done; the answers are all there in plain sight...waiting to be seen.
I think there is a point there.. one I made earlier in my offer to you...if all it takes to fly a plane is a bit of 'user' experience then there is no reason why I should not do your job, or for you to do mine...however as we both know it takes more than that..it takes a lot of challenging training and a certain mental approach to the task in hand. So whilst you have the skills, knowledge and the mindset to be a pilot (I'm assuming you are ); I have the equivalent level of skill, knowledge and the mindset to do what I do... and to dismiss either one as being ignorant, nonsensical, unreal or anything else is merely a demonstration of one's own lack of knowledge of what the other really does...an unedifing position to be in I hope you will agree.
Happy flying.
You raised some very good points...and you are right we have a shared aim.
The real issue is that nowhere did I make the link between getting thro security as a 'fake' crew and actually taking an aircraft. Others, including yourself made it and implied that is what I meant. So far from back tracking and changing the goals posts, my scenario was to point out that assumptions made by others were some how inherent to my original post. Not true, whilst I said they were 'fully tooled up to fly' did you ever stop to consider that it is part of their 'crew' disguise...like the uniforms, like the IDs....
Brakedwell made a point that gathering a 'couple of pilots and a dozen cabin crew' was impossible...with the assumption that all they intended to do was to 'take an aircraft'. I retorted that fewer in number could be gathered to pass as 'say a 146 crew'...would Jonny Jobsworth on security be able to challenge that, should he have reason to be suspicious of this crew? Possibly not.
I also attempted to remind people that 'its not possible' has been proven all too possible too often to make that notion an extremely dangerous one, again the example quoted serves that purpose.
You are right that there are too many gotchas, both air and land side that would mean it's highly unlikely that a fake crew could actually take an aircraft.
The issue of this thread is however getting thro the security barrier. And it's the tone adopted by many here that they, as aircrew, ATCOs and others, should not be subject to the treatment they receive at the 'common security' points to airside. They imply..and others have said it more directly, that their 'status' as evidenced by an ID card and a uniform should enable them to be treated differently than the others. I have pointed out that it is far too easy to defeat that.
IDs, even those that are time sensitive, pin-defined are all able to be defeated...the systems that create them are avaliable and can therefore be abused. Gaining that information, and from there being able to find counters to it is not particularly difficult. Again I illustrated the fact that the knowledge is there...being used by many people, it is not a highly confidential matter.
If those same people want to be treated differently, hopefully with greater consideration to their role and with greater consistency, then the best way may be to make sure they are checked in a different fashion, preferably in a different place, by differently trained security staff. Again the aim here is to add a 'gotcha' and close a potential weakness.
In your scenario you have made another assumption...that the fake crew, once thro security, will remain as a group, with the same appearance. Simply removing a jacket, losing a tie, rolling up one's sleeves, a pair of glasses, letting your hair down in the case of a lady and the 'impression' one leaves is completely different...and the crew 'vanishes' in plain sight. And none of this is unreasonable...its not a fantasist world, influenced by too many films...
Much of your 'instinct' then is unusable. Your detailed list of crew bus drivers, dispatchers and so forth is interesting but then potentially irrelevant.
As for the 'increasing crescendo'..interesting coming from somebody whose opening line was a possibly strident 'you don't have the faintest idea'...followed by an accusation of posting 'ignorant nonsense'....and concluded by 'get a some sleep and a reality check'. The overall tone was one of dismissive contempt for somebody who, in your opinion, could not possibly know anything about the subject at all. I think my response illustrated that there is a possibility that by doing what I do I may not be as uneducated as you assume, I may have watched more than one episode of 'Airport' or seen too many James Bond films, equally I might not.
I am however concerned and perhaps somewhat flattered that you have bothered to do so much research about me. What is worrying, at least to me, is that the jumps to conclusions you make following a brief post have not been followed up by a logical joining of the dots following the possibly more in depth research you have done; the answers are all there in plain sight...waiting to be seen.
I think there is a point there.. one I made earlier in my offer to you...if all it takes to fly a plane is a bit of 'user' experience then there is no reason why I should not do your job, or for you to do mine...however as we both know it takes more than that..it takes a lot of challenging training and a certain mental approach to the task in hand. So whilst you have the skills, knowledge and the mindset to be a pilot (I'm assuming you are ); I have the equivalent level of skill, knowledge and the mindset to do what I do... and to dismiss either one as being ignorant, nonsensical, unreal or anything else is merely a demonstration of one's own lack of knowledge of what the other really does...an unedifing position to be in I hope you will agree.
Happy flying.
Brakedwell made a point that gathering a 'couple of pilots and a dozen cabin crew' was impossible...with the assumption that all they intended to do was to 'take an aircraft'. I retorted that fewer in number could be gathered to pass as 'say a 146 crew'...would Jonny Jobsworth on security be able to challenge that, should he have reason to be suspicious of this crew? Possibly not.
Last edited by brakedwell; 21st Sep 2006 at 06:48. Reason: toothpaste added
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: the sky
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very interesting thread, expecially when the posters are bending over backwards trying to demonstrate that pilots are no different from any other so must endure the same security crap.
The family that disappears and the ensuing blackmail letter is the best of all!
Most of the security measures are aimed at people that want to take control of an aircraft to use it as a weapon, like they did on 9-11.
That's why security confiscates nail files, screwdrivers etc...
As many pilots tried to explain they don't need any tool to achieve that goal, that's why they are different, but stone headed security worshippers won't understand, not even shooting that concept in their heads with a gun.
Another thing that they don't grasp is that most of the world doesn't apply the same security measures as you have in UK.
In the last month I overflew UK in almost all of my USA-bound flights, with my toothpaste with me.
Same applies to almost all of the european carriers, so you have half of the flights over your airspace (the ones that originated in UK) VERY safe (no toothpaste) while the other half where really unsafe (toothpaste still in the hands of crews and passengers).
I think it's due time you and your government came back to reality.
The family that disappears and the ensuing blackmail letter is the best of all!
Most of the security measures are aimed at people that want to take control of an aircraft to use it as a weapon, like they did on 9-11.
That's why security confiscates nail files, screwdrivers etc...
As many pilots tried to explain they don't need any tool to achieve that goal, that's why they are different, but stone headed security worshippers won't understand, not even shooting that concept in their heads with a gun.
Another thing that they don't grasp is that most of the world doesn't apply the same security measures as you have in UK.
In the last month I overflew UK in almost all of my USA-bound flights, with my toothpaste with me.
Same applies to almost all of the european carriers, so you have half of the flights over your airspace (the ones that originated in UK) VERY safe (no toothpaste) while the other half where really unsafe (toothpaste still in the hands of crews and passengers).
I think it's due time you and your government came back to reality.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I have read this post the prime complaint is that air crew, ATCOs and others who daily work on the 'other side' are being subject to the same measures as the travelling public.
It has been pointed out numerous times none of these people need toothpaste, shaving foam or whatever else is on the list today to cause havoc...their jobs and the abilities inherent in them are sufficient.
Rightly to be treated in the same fashion as the anonymous travelling public and vulnerable to unpredictable attitudes from security staff is not helping anyone. Nor does it enhance security as it does not remove any of the potential risk.
But associated with that fact is this assumption that just because of who they are... manifested by say a uniform and ID, they should be granted a different standard of treatment from the security staff who are there to deal primarily with the travelling masses. This assumption is incorrect. The fake crew scenario was an easy way of making it clear. If that is all it took to ensure that the crew were not subject to the same restrictions as others then it would be abused, especially if you are expecting the security staff to make this judgement call...
I mentionned that if crews and others wish to be treated differently..which is not an unreasonable desire, then this treatment should perhaps take place in a different location, with different criteria and with security staff trained in a different fashion. The focus here would be less on what they have and far more on who they are...and are they supposed to be there in the first place. What they are then taking on board would not be such an issue. This solves both the attitude problem.. on both sides. and the irritation of having kit needlessly confiscated.
I can understand that on a forum such as this being able to vent one's fustrations is desirable. However if discussion is the aim of the game then discuss. If its reinforcement of your own viewpoints that you seek then perhaps another section could be opened for that..
It has been pointed out numerous times none of these people need toothpaste, shaving foam or whatever else is on the list today to cause havoc...their jobs and the abilities inherent in them are sufficient.
Rightly to be treated in the same fashion as the anonymous travelling public and vulnerable to unpredictable attitudes from security staff is not helping anyone. Nor does it enhance security as it does not remove any of the potential risk.
But associated with that fact is this assumption that just because of who they are... manifested by say a uniform and ID, they should be granted a different standard of treatment from the security staff who are there to deal primarily with the travelling masses. This assumption is incorrect. The fake crew scenario was an easy way of making it clear. If that is all it took to ensure that the crew were not subject to the same restrictions as others then it would be abused, especially if you are expecting the security staff to make this judgement call...
I mentionned that if crews and others wish to be treated differently..which is not an unreasonable desire, then this treatment should perhaps take place in a different location, with different criteria and with security staff trained in a different fashion. The focus here would be less on what they have and far more on who they are...and are they supposed to be there in the first place. What they are then taking on board would not be such an issue. This solves both the attitude problem.. on both sides. and the irritation of having kit needlessly confiscated.
I can understand that on a forum such as this being able to vent one's fustrations is desirable. However if discussion is the aim of the game then discuss. If its reinforcement of your own viewpoints that you seek then perhaps another section could be opened for that..
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Body
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we could bring down airplanes with toothpaste that would be fantastic. Think of the financial savings: no need for Instrument Rating, written exams, coastal refraction etc..
Reminds me of the Infinite Improbability Drive in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy which was powered by tea, if memory serves.
Just issue all PPLs with a tube of toothpaste (with three stripes of course, can't be giving them too much power straight away) and you have instant IR CPL. Amazing. Why has the CAA not thought of this! I think we should be told.
Reminds me of the Infinite Improbability Drive in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy which was powered by tea, if memory serves.
Just issue all PPLs with a tube of toothpaste (with three stripes of course, can't be giving them too much power straight away) and you have instant IR CPL. Amazing. Why has the CAA not thought of this! I think we should be told.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fake crew scenario was an easy way of making it clear. If that is all it took to ensure that the crew were not subject to the same restrictions as others then it would be abused, especially if you are expecting the security staff to make this judgement call...
PP
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok then.
For all you Security Obsessed people, a simple question?
What will happen, when the dft decide that we could revert to the old days and bring in the lipstick, the explosive curry and contact lense cleaner fluid?
What will have happened to all your arguments for all these shoes/belts and confiscations idiocies then, because the REAL situation will not have changed, just the dft or whomever's perception!
Why is it going to be ok then to bring all this through for a pilot?
Please get a grip and understand, nothing is safe for as long as there are airports, pilots or the existence of life on earth!
For all you Security Obsessed people, a simple question?
What will happen, when the dft decide that we could revert to the old days and bring in the lipstick, the explosive curry and contact lense cleaner fluid?
What will have happened to all your arguments for all these shoes/belts and confiscations idiocies then, because the REAL situation will not have changed, just the dft or whomever's perception!
Why is it going to be ok then to bring all this through for a pilot?
Please get a grip and understand, nothing is safe for as long as there are airports, pilots or the existence of life on earth!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Pete kind of stole my thunder in response to MFAFF......
Seriously though, mfaff, according to your logic..security has no point. ID cards are no good (they can be copied) uniforms have no merit (spend a bit of money on Ebay and hey presto!)...and of course once they (the mythical and thoroughly well resourced terrorist) are airside, its a quick change into a new disguise which allows them to carry out their dastardly deeds with a minimum of fuss
Back to the real world...and we are talking about pilots here, not cleaners, caterers, bus drivers, fuellers, engineers, station managers, or for that matter architects.
1. Once locked behind our bullet-proof door, there is no need for exploding shoes, underpants, toothpaste, contact lense fluid.
2. Removing said items adds NOTHING to security and accomplishes nothing more than to "piss off" a large majority of otherwise professional, competant, and considerate aviators.
3. Every system, design, concept, or process that has been implimented to improve security is vunerable to the ingenuity of man.
I say to all you hollywood fantasists...go out more, and get a life. To the armchair expert on here....go back to eating your chicken wrap for lunch, instead of posting uninformed rubbish on here
Seriously though, mfaff, according to your logic..security has no point. ID cards are no good (they can be copied) uniforms have no merit (spend a bit of money on Ebay and hey presto!)...and of course once they (the mythical and thoroughly well resourced terrorist) are airside, its a quick change into a new disguise which allows them to carry out their dastardly deeds with a minimum of fuss
Back to the real world...and we are talking about pilots here, not cleaners, caterers, bus drivers, fuellers, engineers, station managers, or for that matter architects.
1. Once locked behind our bullet-proof door, there is no need for exploding shoes, underpants, toothpaste, contact lense fluid.
2. Removing said items adds NOTHING to security and accomplishes nothing more than to "piss off" a large majority of otherwise professional, competant, and considerate aviators.
3. Every system, design, concept, or process that has been implimented to improve security is vunerable to the ingenuity of man.
I say to all you hollywood fantasists...go out more, and get a life. To the armchair expert on here....go back to eating your chicken wrap for lunch, instead of posting uninformed rubbish on here
Too mean to buy a long personal title
It's beyond doubt that genuine aircrew don't need to be searched to such a high level, given that they are already trusted not to do any damage once they have control of the aircraft.
But suppose that genuine aircrew are searched to a lower level and are permitted to bring through items that could disguise bomb parts. And suppose that genuine aircrew are searched like this in a place to which bogus aircrew also have access (classically, the shared public security search point).
Wouldn't that open up the possibility that the bogus aircrew could bring through bomb parts - that aren't detected because they're wrongly treated as genuine aircrew - and then either use the bomb parts themselves once they have boarded an aircraft (whether still in their disguise or not), or pass them on to the real bombers who have separately passed through the security checkpoint "clean"?
I think that part of mfaff's point is that you have to make sure that if you're going to search genuine aircrew to a lower level and allow them to bring more things through the security checkpoint, you also have to make sure that they are genuine. If you can be assured of that, then you can relax. But so long as an imposter is able to use that checkpoint undetected by whatever bored or incompetent security screener is on duty that day, you don't want to open up a hole in your defences.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, according to the above logic, we're alright then.
It's the bogus buggers that aren't!
But nevertheless we need to be fluffed about with every day, because the bogus crew may just turn up one day and try to gain entry!
So if I was the bogus crew, would I be coming and going through this effin place for 16 years now?????
I don't think I trust any of the security guards either.
What a load of bollox!
It's the bogus buggers that aren't!
But nevertheless we need to be fluffed about with every day, because the bogus crew may just turn up one day and try to gain entry!
So if I was the bogus crew, would I be coming and going through this effin place for 16 years now?????
I don't think I trust any of the security guards either.
What a load of bollox!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=haughtney1;
1. Once locked behind our bullet-proof door, there is no need for exploding shoes, underpants, toothpaste, contact lense fluid.
QUOTE]
hold on a minute, no need for underpants ??? really ?
out of interest how long does it take to train to be a BAA security person ?
1. Once locked behind our bullet-proof door, there is no need for exploding shoes, underpants, toothpaste, contact lense fluid.
QUOTE]
hold on a minute, no need for underpants ??? really ?
out of interest how long does it take to train to be a BAA security person ?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: lgw
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Penko, you must be referring to the FAA ATPL (ATP). 
Bottom Line(s) as someone pointed out. Itsa ll pointless A) because since day one there has been no change o flights originating outside the UK and heading in , apart from the redneck of A.
B) Crew dont need a chemistry set to cause a big bang. That really should be the end of the arguements.
Lets focus on slagging off the government instead of each other.
Dodgy legislation empowers some idiots in security no more than the ANO empowers some t0ssers with an ATPL with absolute authority in an aircraft. Both sets of t0ssers are the ones that cant use the authority or powers in a reasoned and civilised manner and confuse said powers with achievement instead of mandate. Thats why we Pilots have CRM, to learn to get on with lesser mortals.
Bottom Line(s) as someone pointed out. Itsa ll pointless A) because since day one there has been no change o flights originating outside the UK and heading in , apart from the redneck of A.
B) Crew dont need a chemistry set to cause a big bang. That really should be the end of the arguements.
Lets focus on slagging off the government instead of each other.
Dodgy legislation empowers some idiots in security no more than the ANO empowers some t0ssers with an ATPL with absolute authority in an aircraft. Both sets of t0ssers are the ones that cant use the authority or powers in a reasoned and civilised manner and confuse said powers with achievement instead of mandate. Thats why we Pilots have CRM, to learn to get on with lesser mortals.