Wideroe Pilot Quits due to security checkpoint hassles

[DA50driver]

http://www.vg.no/pub/vgart.hbs?artid=169919
This is from a Norwegian newspaper. Roughly translated it says that a Wideroe (Part of SAS I think, they fly Dash 8's) pilot quit his job because he is sick of being treated as a terrorist every time he goes through the security screening.
I suggest we set up a fund to help the guy out, and to help out others who may "loose it".
There is also a reference to a Wideroe pilot who cancelled his flight because he was too upset to fly after arguing with a security guard about access to a crew room.
There are some very nice and courteous screeners around. But there are also some boneheads like the guy in Brussels that wanted me to send my billfold through the x-ray machine. I told him he could look at it all he wanted, but I would not give up possession of it. If it goes through and I get held up by a screener, good-bye license and money.
I think it is time that we all stand up and say "enough"! Let's brainstorm and come up with a solution to this problem together.
Any ideas?
I'll try to call from Guantanamo

[flufdriver]

I support action to bring some sense to this whole security pretense!!

1.) We need unity on this matter (as on so many others)
2.) First step is to insist that every secuity screener has to go through the same process every time they want to pass through the checkpoint, just like all of us have to. That means if they go on a break or come back whatever! if they have to go from one side to the other they have to meet the conditions as we have to!
3.) Second every Law enforcement officer (Cop) has to meet the same conditions, who says the Cop uniform cannot be fake or stolen? and they cannot have their fire-arms, handcuffs, Pepperspray etc. back until they leave the sterile area.

As it is right now these folks consider themselves so high and mighty that they can set of all the bells and whistles and no-one lifts an eyebrow!(except of course the dumb flight-crews.

I believe this would be a good way to demonstrate what we have to tolerate day in day out.

fluf

[Juud]

According to the Norland newspaper, the CEOs of SAS, Widerĝe and Norwegian have written the Norwegian Aviation Administration to express their concern.
"Flying personnel get harassed and humiliated. They are subjected to abuse of power by airport security screeners."
We have had enough, says Widerĝe boss Per Arne Watle.

Security risk
An unfortunate culture is developing among security staff at many Norwegian airports. We are worried about this development. The treatment regularly meted out to our flying personnel is watering down respect for the security system. We have many examples of a particular type of behaviour that endangers air safety. Personnel who have to prepare themselves for their flight, are being provoked and distracted.

This doesn't only happen in Norway. Both from personal experience and from reading these pages, I know that security screeners abusing their powers to harass and humiliate flying personnel is a dangerous industrywide phenomenon.

It seems that these Norwegian CEOs are breaking new ground by speaking out for common sense, by finally expressing publically and officially what all of us in the industry have known for a long time; by calling a spade a spade and saying enough is enough!

Making management of other airlines aware of what is happening in Norway and urging them to follow the Norwegian example might not be a bad idea.
I shall be writing to ours.

[Life's a Beech]

I have not come across direct provocation in UK/Europe even Norway, just bone-headed, irrational stupidity. Most ridiculous of course awas when they wouldn't let me have my flask of coffee (just filled by the handling agent in my view). The handling agent told them it was catering and they let it through That was really bizarre, let pax crew take liquids, but not if they are for themselves. Especially as I had sole control of the aircraft.

It has gone too far when a crew I knew were not allowed to take water onto a cargo aircraft. That is a flight-safety issue.

[iae2500]

Recently out of a major UK airport one of the Captains just quietly let his feelings known when after being requested to return through the scanner again and again to remove shoes and then belt etc etc then he just removed his trousers to save them the bother,,, a weeks suspension and now he is taking a case against the security due loss of earnings.

There is no doubt it is distracting and uttelry OTT, this feeling is without doubt felt amongst all flight and cabin crew where I am.
I have had security pull a bottle of water out of my bag that i just plainly forgot about and then had to endure a verbal stripping down and speaking to like a child from some jumped up johhny with a vendetta for flight deck.
Just take the bottle off me and keep your attitude for elsewhere,we are supposed to be on the same team are we not?

I for one am FED UP with it,, the system needs a reality check.

[silverhawk]

Well in UK, Balpa is chasing this, but as always progress is very slow.

I'd rather just cancel each and every flight where bone fide ID holders are treated like potential terrorrists. As always commonsense is in short commodity.

[M609]

According to the Norland newspaper, the CEOs of SAS, Widerĝe and Norwegian have written the Norwegian Aviation Administration to express their concern

Correct, it's here: http://www.vg.no/pub/vgart.hbs?artid=169938

Rough translation (My spelling is generally poor!)

Avinor
Att: CEO Sverre Quale


Fornebu 17.03.2007

Regarding security screening of crew

Due to an increasing amount of reports we receive from staff, we feel that it is necessary to inform you that it appears to be a subculture emerging among security personnel at several airports in Norway
We have several examples of undesirable incidents where crew feel that they are treated as suspects or is treated in an provocative or humiliating way by security personnel in front of passengers.
We do not want do go into details in this letter, but details can be provided if required.
We are concerned about the future, as we are experiencing the situation on several airports.
Such treatment of our employees undermines the respect required for a sound security system.
We ask Avinor to take this case seriously, because the security staffs conduct has a negative effect on flight safety when crew preparing for flights get provoked and distracted.


Sincerely
Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA SASBraathens Widerĝe Flyveselskap


Bjĝrn Kjos Ola Strand Per Arne Watle
Adm. direktĝr Adm. direktĝr Adm.direktĝr


Copy
Norwgian CAA
CO Heine Richardsen
Postboks 243
8001 Bodĝ

[llondel]

In case you thought it might get better...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6462719.stm

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis has called for airport-style screening of passengers at British railway stations to combat terrorism. [...]

So, no sharp objects on trains, you'll have to endure what the buffet car (if any) has to offer in the way of drinks and your bags will end up in Bristol (damaged) when you're in Glasgow.

[Avman]

A sure way of putting even more cars on the road

Until they decide I have to go through a security check before getting into my car that is. Who put these dumbo politicians into power? We the people of course

[Danny]

An interesting development. I just wish more airline bosses had the cojones to make a stand and speak up against the new little empires that have sprung up from the "Terror Industry".

Whilst we will concentrate on security and how it affects us as crew, the following article makes some valuable points about how it is going to be difficult for some to give up their new found powers.

Terror Porn
by John Stossel

Posted 03/07/2007 ET
http://www.humanevents.com/article.p...t=yes&id=19699

Politicians and security analysts constantly remind us that a terrorist attack is just a matter of time. Clark Kent Ervin, former inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security and author of "Open Target: Where America is Vulnerable to Attack," says we must have tougher security at stadiums, shopping malls, and even schools. "We can have deterrence measures like police patrols ... greater use of bomb-detecting dogs, and bomb sensors, other such technologies ... random bag searches," he told me. "If terrorists see that such measures are in place, they're less likely to strike."

This seemed illogical to me, and so I was delighted to discover the book "Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them." Its author, Ohio State political science professor John Mueller, points out the folly of arming shopping-mall guards: "A terrorist would say, well, if that mall has guards around it, I'll go the one that doesn't. ... If you protect one thing and you simply displace the terrorist to a different threat ... it's an exercise in futility."

Mueller also says the threat to the average American is overblown. "Your chances of being killed, at present rates, by an international terrorist outside of a war zone is something like 1 in 80,000," he says. "It's about the same as being killed by an asteroid."

But on Sept. 11, almost 3,000 people died! Mueller replies that 9/11 was not a typical terrorist attack. Terrorists were able to capture four planes, and two huge buildings collapsed. "It's a spectacular exception to what terrorists have been able to do," he said. Sure enough, since 9/11, the biggest terrorist successes have been the bombings of commuter trains in Madrid and a nightclub in Bali. The death toll from each attack was about 200 people. "Outside of war zones, the amount of destruction is maybe 200 people a year," says Mueller. "That's 200 people too many, but that's hardly an existential threat. In the United States, between 300 and 400 people die every year just from drowning in bathtubs."

He says there's a terrorism industry -- I call it the "Fear Industrial Complex" -- made up of the media, the bureaucracy, business, and politicians. "Politicians notice that when they hype the terrorist threat, people respond favorably," Mueller says.

Then the bureaucracy hypes terrorism to justify its pork.

"Terror porn" is what economist Veronique de Rugy calls it. Why "porn"? "Because porn sells, [and] terrorism sells even better," she says. "It's great for politicians. They can campaign on the fact that they are protecting us. They also can campaign on the fact that they're bringing more money to their states."

Lots of small towns do get absurd grants for homeland security. Lake County, Tenn., a rural county with only 8,000 people, got nearly $200,000 in homeland-security money.

"I don't know that terrorists will come, but I don't know they won't come," Lake County Mayor Macie Roberson told us, smiling.

At least he didn't do what Columbus, Ohio did: spend it on bulletproof vests for police dogs.

Ervin concedes that some security money is wasted, but still says we need to spend more. "It's very important to reassure the American people that our government is doing everything it can to protect them," he told me. "If we do that, we will have succeeded in denying terrorists a major victory."

No. The opposite is true. It's overreacting that would give them a victory.

Of course, terrorism is a real threat. But fear kills people, too. A University of Michigan study found that an additional 1,000 Americans died in car accidents in the three months after Sept. 11, because they were afraid to fly. We need to keep risk in perspective.

"We have had dark moments in our history, far darker moments than those we face today," says The Rand Corporation's Brian Michael Jenkins. After studying terrorism for 40 years, he likes to remind people, "We've come through wars, plagues, pandemics ... The response to terrorism cannot be diving under the kitchen table and living in a state of fear. That's exactly what the terrorists are attempting to create."


Mr. Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News' "20/20" and the author of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel -- Why Everything You Know is Wrong".

[The Sandman]

My general feeling is that the whole "security" industry that has developed (and industry is exactly what it is - a very self-interested one at that) has become parasitic upon the very host that it depends on for its survival - aviation. If it is an unwise and overaggressive parasite, it will likely strangle and eventually kill the very host it needs for its survival - or as noted above, simply branch out and seek out new industries to strangle. Terrorists, like all humans, are very capable of circumventing virtually any mass-screening process put in place. Anything made by people can be circumvented by other people. Personally I am amazed at the resilience in the general travelling public (let alone those of us that do this professionally) in enduring the ridiculous and OTT indignities to which they are subjected daily.

[Self Loading Freight]

Bruce Schneier, someone who has a very deep understanding of the issues and who talks a great deal of sense, calls this sort of thinking "security theatre" - stuff designed to look good and make people feel safe, but that makes no appreciable difference to the risks.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archive...ism_secur.html

He's right on every point. The actual risk to people from terrorism is tiny - less than from taking a bath, for example. Putting people through the indignities of security does not change that risk at all - if you check for liquids, then a terrorist will use solid explosives. If you lock down air travel, then they'll blow up motorway bridges at rush hour.

The best, sanest and only proportionate response is to say stuff it, and go about our lives efficiently and with dignity. Let the security services do their work, try and create a fairer world where terrorism is obviously pointless, keep 'em peeled... but putting your mouthwash in a plastic bag has got absolutely nothing to do with reality.

R

[flufdriver]

I am actually not against security at all!

But what we currently have is not security unless security is threatened by fluids in excess of 3oz and in bags larger then one quart/liter.

I contend that what we have come to call "security" is a charade devoid of intelligence or a plan.

The massive amount of scarcely trained manpower that is being deployed is nothing more then a social program with the hoped for side benefit of fooling people into believing that they are safe.

Further, the people that would be the strongest allies in containing security risks are being alienated by the agents of this security complex.

In addition, any sensible person knows that flight-crew have all the tools they need to perpetrate a terrorist act (with an aircraft) even if they had to board the aircraft completely naked.

(In my case, it would be considered a terrorist act if I appeared naked)

It is a charade to distract the public from worrying about cost of living, education, healthcare, infrastructure (roads, railways etc) social services and globalisation.

The terrorists and scaremongerers have won! I leave it up to you where you think they are domiciled!

George Orwell, is that you I see in the distance?

fluf

[TSR2]

Ridiculous and OTT indignities?

As a regular traveller through Manchester, this is not my experience.
Without exception I have been processed by friendly and efficient security staff and the only complaints I have ever heard from fellow passengers are from a handfull of obnoxious business men who regard the security screening process as nothing more than a great inconvenience. However, I am sure there are some over officious security staff that could hinder rather than help the smooth passage through security, but I have yet to encounter one. One thing is certain that it is a far more pleasant experience passing through security in Manchester than in most European airports.
With regards to the screening of flight crews, I have a little difficulty in understanding the fundamental basis of the objections. Is it that flight crews generally think they should justifiably be treated differently to passengers or indeed do they think they are treated more strictly than passengers. Perhaps its a case of not wanting to comply with regulations or that the regulations present a barrier to the efficient performance of duties. Whatever the reasons, if it leads to confrontation it cannot be good for flight safety and that is a concern for all passengers.
I am certainly not having a go at flight crews, but simply want to understand the fundamental problems you encounter with security checks.

[411A]

Hmmm, the 'security hassles' must be a European thing.
Never a problem in the middle east or Africa, at last for myself. Asia the same.
In these locations, just a polite 'good evening, Captain'.

[Shot Nancy]

I would highly recommend the rubdown, sorry, the patdown performed by the Beijing security girls.

[BEagle]

I think that Danny summed it up perfectly.

A friend of mine, who was a captain for Virgin, ferried one of the old Classics to the desert boneyard, then flew back with his airline. Of course a pilot with a one-way ticket and no luggage except his pilot bag caused the State Security people to consider him as a high risk.... Full, heavy-handed security checking, despite his legitimate travel.

That was the final straw. Being locked into the flight deck for hours on end and let out for a pee now and again and no longer being able to chat to passengers, or invite them to visit the flight deck was bad enough. But being treated like a criminal every time he reported for work was the end - and he resigned.

As a mere business passenger, spending 15 minutes in a queue (about twice per fortnight, on average) to unpack my laptop, empty my pockets, perhaps remove shoes, belt, watch depending upon the whim of that latest stupidity emanating from DfT does become exceptionally irritating - for airline crews it must be close to intolerable.

I see from a recent CHIRP that the explanation proffered to BALPA is that the basic DfT 'regulations' are often added to or even misinterpreted by airport operators - hence the lack of standardisation. It is good to see SAS, Widerĝe and Norwegian raising the issue - airline crews should most certainly not be treated like criminals every time they go to work. Personally, I also feel that airlines should treat their revenue-bringing frequent fliers a whole let better and do more for them in terms of security checks. Some German airports do this, but as far as I'm aware, no British airports do.

However, the rude, arrogant behaviour of the security person I encountered at an airport last week is currently under investigation by the airport operator. Manners cost nothing.

If the excesses of the idiots at DfT continues, I shall certainly be looking more closely at taking my car through the Channel Tunnel in future - there is only so much embuggerance which one can put up with and my patience, along with that of many colleagues, is wearing pretty thin.

It really is time that the airline unions AND CEOS stood up to the nonsense of the paranoid security industry rather more robustly and stopped the ridiculous behaviour of airport checkers; such behaviour causes irritation and frustration which is hardly conducive to safety.

[Springer1]

"With regards to the screening of flight crews, I have a little difficulty in understanding the fundamental basis of the objections"


TSR2

I have to go through security 20 times a month. How often do you think the average passenger does?

[Ron & Edna Johns]

Springer 1 and TSR2: how about trying 2 or 3 times PER DAY, 20 days a month, in some places???? Places such as Brisbane International where the briefing office is the other side of security but some genius has deemed it "not in the sterile area". So, just signing on there alone involves complete screening prior to getting to office, and then a 2nd, repeat screening when proceeding to aircraft.... Ah, but why not go straight to aircraft via THAT door there to the tarmac? Afterall, all the ground staff are doing exactly that. "NOT PERMITTED - YOU'RE FLIGHT CREW - YOU HAVE TO BE SECURITY SCREENED," is the officialdom answer. Oh, but the cleaner can proceed out directly, no problem, that's ok.....

Are people like you, TSR2, starting to hear what we are bloody-well saying?!

[gulfboy]

This "GESTAPO-like" treatment of crew (and pax) seems to be largely a "Western" thing.
CDG checkers are the rudest ones we (on our carrier) encounter. Sour-faced, ignorant power-pussies. Refuse to speak English, rather point, push and snarl. LHR crew screening is usually polite, nevertheless thorough. FRA so-so, depending who is on duty. The younger their staff, the more hassle crew gets. Taking off shoes, jackets, belts, watches, pins and name badges from shirts... the girls still "beep". Take off the underwire bra????

SIN, for example, provides sensible service with a smile. 3 am or 3 pm, doesn't matter. "Hello Captain, how was your rest? Had a nice time in Singapore?" A 30 second process.

Of course all this extra "security" bull...t, costs crew time. WE do get picked up from the hotels earlier and earlier, reducing rest time further and further.
"To ensure the AC will leave on time".
Companies don't (usually) care beacause they just adjust "rest" times.
Politicians and officials don't care because they probably get whisked through VIP channels.
We as crew are a soft target for the whims of "Security" personnell because we can't complain to anyone. They fill their quotas for feeling up people.

Incidently, WHY so often exactly those kind of people (thugs) working IN security, that you are trying to keep AWAY from sensitive areas or your home??? ;-)