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 8th May 2007, 14:00
  #141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: England
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Man.mong

You are not the first security person to leave for the same reasonís you obviously are and I wish you the best in your search. I would say tell the management when you do leave the reasons why but I fear they would see it as a feather in their cap rather then be concerned that they are upsetting so many people needlessly! But then it just shows apart from individuals such as your self what cretins we up against!
Symbian is offline  
Old 8th May 2007, 14:17
  #142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
One Criminal records check

One Universally recognised standard airside pass based on records check, verified by current employer

One Fingerprint AND Iris scan, encoded onto pass, absolutely unique!

Once this is in place a visit to security should take no more than 10 secs as they will know exactly who we are and should remove the need for these ridiculous rules.


In Canada, we have recently adopted this strategy and it was a VERY welcome change.

First a scanner reads your security card, then most security points use the fingerprint scan to confirm who you are. Takes 10 seconds and you are through the door without any further checks.
Lost in Saigon is offline  
Old 8th May 2007, 15:40
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Southwest
Age: 37
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi All,

Im a guard at Bristol (for my sins) and Im fed up with the liquid restrictions as much as you guys. In some respects, these measures should remain for passengers and perhaps some airport staff, but I don't see the point in such restrictions being imposed on aircrew. Unfortunately DfT don't take much notice of any feedback!

I dont know too much about the new testing process (as I seldom work in the passenger search comb) but I think the ratio is something like 1/100 (pointless). If this has already been mentioned, then excuse me, havent read ALL of the posts on this thread.

Security staff to be searched when entering the RZ? We are. Or at least in the UK we are.

As for a universally recognised pass, I wish! It would certainly make sense for aircrew, however I wish there was just one DfT standard RZ for airport staff in the UK. Might happen one day, if they ever decide to spend some time looking at REAL measures to make security screening effective.
ATCO1987 is offline  
Old 8th May 2007, 15:52
  #144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sussex,UK
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Going back to the signs regarding being "nice" to the security guards, they don't exactly help themselves. I recently had a particularly long 4 sector day out of a certain Southern UK airport and some of the crew had bought sandwiches and snacks due to the not so appetising crew food. Low and behold, security decided these were far to dangerous due to mayonaisse dressings etc. and they were promptly confiscated. As we were waiting for the security hall doors to close, I received a phone call from ops asking us to return to the crew room due to a delay. We nipped back in the doors and were gobsmacked to find the guys and girls in security happily tucking in to OUR lunch! (Guess what dressing I'm using in my sandwiches next time!) Then they wonder why we've all had enough! They seem to use the rules to suit themselves.
jetset lady is offline  
Old 8th May 2007, 15:54
  #145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Girtbar, I think this link takes you to the petition you have set up on the Number 10 website.
OK guys & girls, providing Danny etc don't mind this being posted here then let's all get signing and see if we can make a difference. It took me about 30 seconds so nothing to lose and just maybe we can go back to more sensible security again.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/airside/
Wefeedumall is offline  
Old 8th May 2007, 16:45
  #146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Euroville
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From the Irish Times:

Aircraft security regulations to be maintained in spite of doubts

Jamie Smyth

European Diary: Security measures introduced at European airports in November 2006 in the wake of a foiled plot to blow up British aircraft with liquid explosives came under the spotlight at the European Parliament last week.

The Liberal Group held a public hearing on regulation 1546, which restricts passengers to carrying a maximum of one litre of liquids, gels and pastes in separate 100ml amounts onto aircraft.

The EU chose not to annul the regulation yesterday following its first six-month review of the measure, citing a "continued risk posed by liquid explosives".

Yet at last week's hearing, scientists, MEPs and the airline industry strongly criticised the rules. "Senseless", "idiotic" and an "infringement of fundamental freedoms" were some of the charges laid against the security regulation on liquids by a succession of speakers.

"The threat as well as the technology exists, but the measures are neither effective nor proportionate and pose a considerable nuisance to the vast majority of passengers," said Liberal MEP Ignasi Guardans, who co-chaired the public hearing.

"Extra security measures need to focus not on inanimate objects but on people," said Christophe Naudin, director of international security at the University of Paris II, who demonstrated his hypothesis by smuggling a detonator for a bomb and explosive liquids past the parliament's security staff.

"You can make explosive devices with two solids or with liquids of less than 100ml . . . these measures have not enhanced security, rather they are more to give passengers the feeling that flying is safe."

Carol Van Eijk, professor of physics at Delft University, revealed how the X-ray scanners used at airports cannot tell the difference between explosives and aftershave.

"Identification of liquid explosives is very difficult to do and none of the present methods can do the job in a fast and efficient way that is needed at airports," he said.

Despite these limitations, an EU committee of experts on aviation security decided at a recent meeting that the restrictions should remain.

The committee, which is made up of experts from all 27 member states, must review the regulation every six months to assess whether it is still appropriate. It meets in secret and does not have to make public the justification for imposing or retaining a particular measure. This process, known as comitology, is commonly used to enact a raft of regulations that become law in the EU.

MEPs can express an opinion on the regulations, which are decided in consultation with the European Commission, but cannot amend them.

Several MEPs at the hearing said this secretive procedure meant there was little public scrutiny of regulation 1546 before it was adopted into European law.

The commission and EU states deny this. "MEPs can give an opinion on the regulation and if some didn't read it that is not our fault," said a commission official, who admitted the liquids rules are "imperfect", but are the best possible response.

Meanwhile, the EU committee of experts has loosened the regulation somewhat.

"We think the ban on liquids is necessary," the Swedish member of the committee told The Irish Times. "But a separate proposal to restrict and harmonise rules on the size of hand luggage has been delayed for a year to see if it has any security benefit."

Under the regulation the EU had planned to set the size of hand luggage to a maximum of 56x45x25cm later this month. But fierce lobbying by the industry, which feared travel chaos, helped persuade the EU experts to postpone the measure.

"The problem would have been transfer passengers coming from outside the EU," says Frank O'Connell, president of the European Travel Retail Council. "They would arrive at EU airports with bags that simply didn't meet the EU regulations."

O'Connell, who is also director of Aer Rianta Retail, has witnessed similar chaos caused by the implementation of the liquid restrictions for transfer passengers from outside Europe. Every day 2,500 litres of duty free are confiscated at Frankfurt airport from non-EU transfer passengers because the regulation does not recognise security procedures outside the EU. Meanwhile tit-for-tat rules introduced by Australia now mean that EU passengers have their duty-free goods confiscated upon arrival there. "The rules are causing a huge level of uncertainty for passengers and causing a chill in the duty-free business," says O'Connell.

Aer Rianta's reliance on duty free (it also operates shops in Russia, the US and the Middle East) was the reason the Republic voted against the regulation. Two other countries abstained in the crucial vote, which has never been made public.

But the sceptical evidence presented by experts at the hearing last week suggests it may be time for a proper debate about regulation 1546, and also how to open up the comitology procedure to more scrutiny to boost public accountability.
Telstar is offline  
Old 8th May 2007, 16:46
  #147 (permalink)  
Psychophysiological entity
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Tweet Rob_Benham Famous author. Well, slightly famous.
Age: 84
Posts: 3,270
Received 33 Likes on 16 Posts
We nipped back in the doors and were gobsmacked to find the guys and girls in security happily tucking in to OUR lunch! (Guess what dressing I'm using in my sandwiches next time!) Then they wonder why we've all had enough! They seem to use the rules to suit themselves.

You were gobsmaked. Okay, that was an initial reaction. What did you do next?


I was going to say that it's easy for me to sit here and say what should be done....but it isn't. I get as mad as hell just reading this stuff. I can put my hand on my heart and say that firstly, those thieving bastards would not have got my food. Secondly, if I had come into the loop and seen them eating YOUR food, I would have caused mayhem. On a good day I would have called the police, on a bad day I would no doubt have got into a lot of trouble...but it would have been trouble that I was willing to see through to the end, be it high court or whatever.

You (all) have to DO something other than let off steam. As I said earlier, the airlines are not doing enough to stop this madness, so they must bear some of the cost of a protest.

It has to be at least a nation-wide effort. To be fair, you should give warning of the day on which this @#% is going to stop. I am bewildered by the ineffectual, meandering time-wasting by the unions and government bodies. Just what the blazes are they paid for?




Quote "I shall be taking essentials of course. Water and......." Emelia Earhart.
Loose rivets is offline  
Old 8th May 2007, 16:54
  #148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Southwest
Age: 37
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Talking as a guard, I think thats ridiculous and you wouldnt catch me eating/using confiscated items (Id say that goes for many of my colleagues where I work, certainly those at Crew Search).

Did you not put in a complaint?
ATCO1987 is offline  
Old 8th May 2007, 17:28
  #149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sussex,UK
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ATCO1987 and Loose rivets,

I can assure you I put in complaints to the supervisor on duty, the dft, anyone else I could think of and informed the airline I work for. And guess what. They apparently "take this sort of thing very seriously and will investigate the incident fully"! Yeah, right! I have since heard that this is not an isolated incident here and although I appreciate that it is probably, or hopefully, a minority of idiots that do this sort of thing, that minority is, as is so usually the case, making life a nightmare for their colleagues as well as the rest of us. I wish I'd given them more hell at the time but can only say I was so amazed that anyone could do that, I was left temporarily speechless! Probably a good thing in hindsight!
jetset lady is offline  
Old 8th May 2007, 17:30
  #150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Southwest
Age: 37
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hopefully you're right about it only being a minority, but you're right, its them that ruins it for the rest of us.
ATCO1987 is offline  
Old 8th May 2007, 17:38
  #151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Depends on the day
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Gotta say that this is an absolute load of sh*t. For one thing, aircrew have many more useful tools at their disposal, what is 100ml+ of liquid going to do? Apologies if this point has been brought up, but I couldn't be bothered wading through pages of posts on a point which annoys the buggery out of me
MelbPilot85 is offline  
Old 8th May 2007, 18:19
  #152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
It bothers me that this discussion is seeking to create a caste system between flight crew (pilots) and the greater masses of the unwashed.

There are some good arguments about bonafide card carrying pilots being low risk, But I must remind you that there are equally good arguments about a much larger percentage of the general population being equally low risk. The more that the small population of pilots push for their own sphere of declaring themselves low risk, the more that the much larger population of the general public are going to rebel against one group being declared more clean than themselves. I would much more be inclined to support a petition to either lower the overall security visible inconvenience for all or at least demonstrate that the relief is not exclusive of a larger majority of low risk individuals.
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 8th May 2007, 18:29
  #153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 951
Received 15 Likes on 9 Posts
lomapaseo

I think you may be missing the point that it doesn't matter if a pilot is high or low risk; if he or she is about to take control of an aircraft, because that's what's on the roster, there's no point in searching him/her for weapons or means of suicidal destruction.
old,not bold is offline  
Old 8th May 2007, 19:02
  #154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,164
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 4 Posts
No Speed Restriction I thought you would have learned your lesson by now! You know how dangerous a roll on deodorant can be!

What is the world coming to.
Stone Cold II is offline  
Old 8th May 2007, 19:26
  #155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Benitachell Spain
Age: 84
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I am not nor have ever been associated with airplanes, except as a passenger, but am a regular reader of pprune and have read of the problems that you all are having with "SECURITY"

I have added my name to the email petition above to express my disgust with your treatment.

Let us hope that someone listens and that enough people like myself lend their weight to the petition

Peter
peterpallet is offline  
Old 8th May 2007, 19:34
  #156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Petition

Girtbar, I think this link takes you to the petition you have set up on the Number 10 website.
OK guys & girls, providing Danny etc don't mind this being posted here then let's all get signing and see if we can make a difference. It took me about 30 seconds so nothing to lose and just maybe we can go back to more sensible security again.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/airside/


Have just been on site to add my two pence to the debate to note that only 9 (nine) people appear to have signed.
If I mis read it I apologise but if right this only goes to show what a bunch of old whingers we are if we can't even make the effort to change this farce which we moan about and can't be bothered to fight.
What was the old saying: Don't complain about the government if you didn't bother to vote. You get what you deserve.
Surely we deserve better than the staus quo (which will only get worse)
ShedsRus is offline  
Old 8th May 2007, 20:09
  #157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
We are almost where the authorities want us now! The more stringent checks are here and not too much fuss has been kicked up. Right, what do you do next, make them tougher, get people more stressed, so stressed until they unite and say no, we have had enough of this. Then offer a solution. An easy solution. Some form of electronic identification, either retinal or by fingerprints. Tie this information in with your CRC. Sit quiz where you answer a few simple questions where you can be profiled and their you have it, FEAR AND CONTROL!

Once all that good info has been gathered on you, screening will be a doddle, just walk up and pass through. The rest of the mass will be asking how come you got through and they are producing a urine sample to check for ingested combustible fluids. The answer will be an application form for full human profiling and their you have it, ID card's through the back door!

Just smile next time you are having your meat n two veg caressed and think, at least you have not been assimilated to the Borg!
Litebulbs is offline  
Old 8th May 2007, 20:18
  #158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lost in Saigon:
First a scanner reads your security card, then most security points use the fingerprint scan to confirm who you are.
I hope it's a better system than this one: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04...int_merc_chop/ and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/4396831.stm

A Malaysian businessman has lost a finger to car thieves impatient to get around his Mercedes' fingerprint security system. Accountant K Kumaran, the BBC reports, had at first been forced to start the S-class Merc, but when the carjackers wanted to start it again without having him along, they chopped off the end of his index finger with a machete.
Mythbusters also defeated a number of fingerprint security locks fairly easily.
llondel is offline  
Old 8th May 2007, 20:45
  #159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
llondel

In my opinion and only my opinion, it is not about safety, it is about getting detailed information of all of us, to be used to a lesser or greater extent by what authority is holding the information. The technology is out their to electronically record every person to a level that would be incredibly hard to duplicate. The second inspection would be the human interface, to just take a sample visual inspection. The old mark one eyes are generally very good at spotting things.
The vote is still out on how much the US authorities knew about 9/11 prior to it actually happening. When money and oil are in the equation, honesty and trust go out the window. Would the suffragette movement had the effect on todays times, if all the activists had been profiled and all their personal information been held by the state? We would all be still in the grafting in the mill house if union activists had to provide a retinal scan before logging into the sweat shop!
Still, it is mighty annoying in the morning getting caught behind a couple of crews getting all their kit checked when I am already late!!!
Another annoying thing is, that at LGW, all people passing though the security gates and Concorde House have to remove their shoes, to allow central search and the staff route by it, to only have a percentage of people remove their shoes! If you search 100% of staff through all other screening areas, you do not have to search as many passengers going through central search, and the route that most managers use to get airside!
The worlds gone mad!

Last edited by Litebulbs; 8th May 2007 at 21:14.
Litebulbs is offline  
Old 8th May 2007, 21:09
  #160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I think you may be missing the point that it doesn't matter if a pilot is high or low risk; if he or she is about to take control of an aircraft, because that's what's on the roster, there's no point in searching him/her for weapons or means of suicidal destruction.
I'm not at all worried about the pilot's susicidal leanings. The greater risk, minimal as it may be, is that the pilot will subcomb to girl friend pressure and take through some lotion for her travel use when I can not. Then of course it later turns out that the girl friend intends to use the lotion for nefarious purposes, against another flight so we all lose.

OK so I admit, I'm not going to win any arguments on this board, but neither will the pilot community prevail in front of the media or the public unless they act in concert.
lomapaseo 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.