Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

The "Crew Security" Thread (merged)

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

The "Crew Security" Thread (merged)

Old 23rd May 2007, 10:20
  #241 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: British
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Isn't the human body made up of 70% water?

By my calculations I'm getting away with 57l of liquids everytime I go to work.
Tight Seat is offline  
Old 23rd May 2007, 13:09
  #242 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,546
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Rainboe
Yep, two of our female crew members were subjected to a "intimate" search a couple of days back - I suspect because DfT were checking the checkers.
Sadly our Delay at the aircraft due to Security was buried by late loading. FWIW the CSD filed a report.
wiggy is offline  
Old 23rd May 2007, 13:57
  #243 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: England
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If your CC were inappropriately touched it is indecent assault call for the police and press charges especially if there were witnesses. It may not end in court but the goons may think twice next time around. The longer we donít take action the worst it is going to get!
Symbian is offline  
Old 23rd May 2007, 14:30
  #244 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/airside/

Nice letter sinbad
stellair is offline  
Old 23rd May 2007, 16:52
  #245 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Brighton, UK
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re LGW crew search............

In South Terminal many crews indeed do take their suitcases through security and if anything is noticed as being "unacceptable" one is just asked to confirm its "going in the hold" and away you go!
TFlyguy is offline  
Old 23rd May 2007, 20:54
  #246 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: England
Posts: 1,077
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Exactly where are security allowed to put their hands when frisking us? There must be some rules. Does anyone know?
ZeBedie is offline  
Old 23rd May 2007, 22:23
  #247 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
depends on wether or not they're wearing rubber gloves!!!
Flyit Pointit Sortit is offline  
Old 24th May 2007, 05:46
  #248 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: England
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
They are not allowed to touch you in sensitive areas i.e. the family jewels including babyís lunch for the ladyís. If they do it is indecent assault for which they can be charged. Of course it is very difficult to prove one on one so it is always a good idea to have witnesses, If they do touch you then make sure your jump for the CCTV
Symbian is offline  
Old 24th May 2007, 08:02
  #249 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Following the recent CHIRP issue that had a number of "security" inccidents reported I emailed CHIRP suporting the stand that they are taking and pointing out that I personaly had at one time or another been treated in the same way.

I have also become aware that at some (and I stress some) airports it has become a "sport" with security giving pilots and particularly captains a hard time.

Have you all seen the notices posted at security about abuse of the staff?
Well this cuts both ways and if you feel that you have been abused you should report it but NOT to the security management.

I have reported inccidents to them and all they do is brush it under the carpet, it took the BAA four months to reply to me following a what I regarded as sexual type inccident of "over searching".

The security complaint system is loaded in the favour of the airport authoritys and gives you no rights what so ever so the only recourse that staff have is to call the police.

I pointed this out to the people at CHIRP and they are going to take up the issue with the DfT at a higher level this time, I am told that CHIRP have recived a lot of letters on the security issue and seem to be the only people who are at the moment taking the flight safety issues that this new "security" has raised seriously.
A and C is offline  
Old 24th May 2007, 08:28
  #250 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Flip Flop day

I think we should all wear flip flops through security on a predetermined day.
Perhaps we can get the media involved as they would love the story and it would high light what nonesense we have to go through. The press and TV would love it.

The hands we use to control the aircraft are the most dangerous weapons we have. we don't need guns , liquids, etc, but its all a matter of trust. We are trusted to operate the aircraft. WE ARE TRUSTED TO OPERATE THE AIRCRAFT IN A SAFE AND SECURE MANNER.

We don't need some minister in some whitehall office dictating how all crew are searched.
tonyflaire is offline  
Old 25th May 2007, 08:21
  #251 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Finland
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dependent on local labour laws, couldn't everyone sign off with stress or something or refuse to fly after the painful search?

Of course, it will give passengers problems too And will be typically when I need to get back to base on commercial flight.

But national pilot unions should do something for their members, get the media alerted, each and every day. I am not normally in favour of militancy (people like SAS cabin crew can do their own damage to the industry with their ongoing strikes) but this is a problem for both crew and PAX.

I know passengers are unhappy with security even those who swallow the line about it being in the "war against terror" (sic) but I think they sympathise. Maybe draw parallel to bus and train drivers and those in other jobs where a "mess up" or incident could kill and injure many. And show what lack of security is there.
luoto is offline  
Old 25th May 2007, 08:24
  #252 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: The dole queue
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Here's an idea, cut a couple of 18 inch long bits of hose pipe and sew one in each inside leg of a pair of trousers...
Now THAT will both confuse and impress the stupid b*stards

(Especially if a few of the girls did it too....)
Mr Magoo is offline  
Old 25th May 2007, 09:08
  #253 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
One anomaly is that BALPA has been trying to get information on security incidents like all those quoted above. However they have recieved very few. Some of which have proved to be hearsay. Without actual dates and times, names etc., it means action is very difficult. This unfortunatly means that TRANSEC (UK Security) think everything is fine and working.
I urge all BALPA members to copy any security incidents to BALPA, so the organization has some definitive proof, so they have something to take to TRANSEC.
Please.
IcePack is online now  
Old 25th May 2007, 18:24
  #254 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
.....and to Chirp please as previously requested. Moaning here is like wetting your pants - it gives you a warm feeling for a few minutes and then...........................

They are waiting for your report. As ICEPACK says, without firm evidence nothing will be done (and even with...... )
BOAC is offline  
Old 25th May 2007, 18:46
  #255 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cool Security - different angle -

You may or may not be interested to hear that machine-gun toting police have been strolling around Rusper, a small West Sussex village north of Horsham, near the Gatwick flightpath.

They terrified half the residents of the quiet one-road village, while the other half seemed to take comfort ( maybe they might riddle the odd burglar ).

It seems they were patrolling looking for baddies with shoulder launched missiles; a chap in a turban with a casual Stinger over his shoulder would of course blend in so well in Rusper...

Naturally the high street is the best place to look, the plods would get their feet wet if looking in the countryside, and the bad guys would never be so unsporting as to hide...

West Sussex County Times front page a week or two ago - my first post was promoted to Spotters' Corner which I thought below the belt, am an aerial photographer - very nearly pond life I know but it's fun.
Double Zero is offline  
Old 25th May 2007, 20:31
  #256 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Exactly where Zebedie

As your permission is required to search "May I search you" once you have concented the search is as intimate as required.No search of you or your possesions is permitted at UK security stations without this concent (no answer but a raising of outstretched arms is taken as concent). If requested a private search may be conducted. Refusal to allow a search may result in addmission being declined.
carousel is offline  
Old 26th May 2007, 15:56
  #257 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: oxfordshire
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From the Sexual Offences Act 2003

>>>3 Sexual assault

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if-

(a) he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b) the touching is sexual,
(c) B does not consent to the touching, and
(d) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable-

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years. <<<

As far as I am concerned if I give a permission to a security person to physically search me I am not reasonably expecting that search to include a search of my genitals. If that person is doing it delibrately and not accidently then it must be sexually motivated. If it happens to me I am calling the police. It may be difficult to prove and may go nowhere but that is not my problem. My duty is to report the crime.
hotmetal is offline  
Old 26th May 2007, 18:26
  #258 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Most of the policemen that I know have a very low opinion of minority of security operatives that abuse the limmited powers that they have and would be more than happy to take action if the case warants it.

It is hard to make a charge of sexual nature stick in these cases but a charge of common assault would be the way to go after all you could push the sexual nature of the assault in court without having to proove that this was in the mind of the person commiting the offence.

The advantage of getting the police involved is that it makes it very hard for the airport authoritys to sweep the inccident under the carpet (in my case 4 months to get a reply from the BAA is just downright rude) and if you are not happy with the way the police deal with the problem then there is a proper way to deal with your dis-satisfaction, something that is sadly lacking with airport security systems.

What gives me the most cause for concern is the fact that I now see "airport security" as the enemy, they abuse me and make it very hard to do my job with pointless "local rules" that I am expected to know dispite the fact that I may have never visited that airport before and then that get abusive because I dont know the "local rule" that they are so keen to enforce.

Real security in depth can only happen if ALL the staff are on side, unfortunatly the DfT have set up a system that has so alienated most of the airport staff that the LAST peope that we would turn to if we suspected sonething was not right would be the airport security staff.

I urge you all to report ALL inccidents to CHIRP and BALPA and make the security industrys life a pain when they have to deal with the paperwork that is raised, that is the only way to get this system sorted out................ and it might just improve security by getting the "industry" and security pulling in the same direction, but the security industry has to win back the respect of all in aviation and in that they have a monumental uphill task !
A and C is offline  
Old 30th May 2007, 10:08
  #259 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: England
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Apologies LIMA OR ALHPA JUNK I have only just seen your post and thank you HOTMETAL for the answer. I was informed myself by an airport police sergeant who was very keen for me to press charges. Now that I have availed myself of the full facts I will have no hesitation in demanding a full apology and see the individual removed from duty. Their other choice will be for me to call the police and press charges as others have mentioned complaining to the security management is a waste of time. As the management donít want to upset them in case they go on strike which would result in airport closure.

So as far as I am concerned now I donít speak to them I never go through alone or allow my crew to. So if there is an incident there are witnesses especially as I had to defend a colleague who was accused by security of something he didnít do and thatís all the proof I need that some of them will lie to protect themselves.

I also file CHIRPS and MOR if serious enough and am quite prepared to call the police if there is a need. I already have one guard who wonít come anywhere near me which suits me fine. But I always stay in control I never lose my rag I just state facts as I will not give them the satisfaction of taking my pass.
Symbian is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2007, 10:40
  #260 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Letter from the Dept of T'port

I just recieved this from the DoT.
My initial queries can be guessed at by the content of the mail.

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your e-mail dated 1 May 2007 about aviation security. In your e-mail you queried why personal searches and restrictions on liquids apply to aircrew and raised concerns about the conduct of certain airport security staff.

All passengers and staff (including flight crew) who seek to enter the restricted zone of airports in the UK are subject to the same mandatory security arrangements. The reason for this is that there are no guarantees that people, even those from the most respected professions, would never be involved in supporting terrorism, whether deliberate or unintended. If the August alert taught us anything it is that terrorists are continually looking for new ways of attacking aircraft and circumventing security. It is clear that where they identify a weakness they will seek to exploit it. If flight deck crew were allowed to take any liquids through the search point into the RZ then it may be seen as weakness in the overall security regime and could be exploited. It is therefore important that the security regulations apply equally to all.

You criticise aircrew screening as not being worthwhile, because pilot's have control of an aircraft full of fuel that in a worst case scenario can be used as a weapon. As you say that is a possibility but not a likely event. I cannot accept that as an argument for not having other measures, as it ignores the fact that there are other scenarios that the security measures aim to mitigate. Our measures have to be robust enough to prevent a range of unlawful eventualities.

As regards background checks I can confirm that all staff working in the RZ of an airport and undertaking security activities are subject to mandatory screening to ensure that they are suitable for undertaking their tasks. I also confirm that staff who carry out the searching and screening procedures are themselves subject to the same search and screening before entry to the RZ is permitted and are subject to the same limitations on what they may take into the RZ of an airport. Furthermore, control authority staff including Department for Transport officials involved in ensuring that the regulations are complied with and implemented correctly are subject to the same requirements.
I note your comments about the conduct and behaviour of screening personnel. You will appreciate that this is the responsibility of the airport as their employer and as such any such concerns you have should be addressed to the airport.

Yours sincerely,

Dharam Singh

For
James Chan
Aviation Security (Domestic) Branch
Transport Security & Contingencies Directorate
Department for Transport
Zone 5/13, Southside
105 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6DT
Tel: 020 7944 8562
rubik101 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.