ePetition re British airside security
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Barcelona
Age: 41
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Signed.
The amount of times I whisper w****ker under my breath while passing STN security is getting beyond a joke. Have all security staff been bullied at school? I say yes...
The amount of times I whisper w****ker under my breath while passing STN security is getting beyond a joke. Have all security staff been bullied at school? I say yes...
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noodick,
I can't sum it up much better than loose rivets but...
I wasn't asking you to 'whinge' on my behalf, you said
So..........Whinge on your own behalf or does it say in your security bible that this is not allowed 
And the reason I sugested you get another job is the number of times you mentioned stress. It's bad for your health you know. I only get stressed out once a working day/night and that's when I visit you before work.......the rest of it I love
Everyone sign this to relieve Noodick of his stress
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/airside/
I can't sum it up much better than loose rivets but...
I wasn't asking you to 'whinge' on my behalf, you said
Stress is having to follow the rules and regulations to the letter (even if you don't agree with them) with the fear of the sack if you don't comply with them
And the reason I sugested you get another job is the number of times you mentioned stress. It's bad for your health you know. I only get stressed out once a working day/night and that's when I visit you before work.......the rest of it I love
Everyone sign this to relieve Noodick of his stress
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/airside/
Last edited by stellair; 15th May 2007 at 16:59. Reason: include link
Guest
Posts: n/a
Signed.
It's not getting a life I miss, just a sensible attitude and the use of common sense in security measures. The rules that treat security staff as robots doesn't help either our attitude to them or theirs to us. I do agree there's a definite minority who are on a power trip though.
It's not getting a life I miss, just a sensible attitude and the use of common sense in security measures. The rules that treat security staff as robots doesn't help either our attitude to them or theirs to us. I do agree there's a definite minority who are on a power trip though.
Yes, Captain, they ALWAYS give us superfluous bits!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Age: 52
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just signed as well.
Note the latest CHIRP, as a possible source of hope
It is very frustrating not to be trusted with milk for your coffee, but ok to be trusted with expensive aircraft and peoples lives!
It's interesting to note that you could theoretically bring in 10 x 100ml cartons in your sealed bag, but not a 350 ml coke etc.
Funny, you can't buy drinks or milk in less than 250 ml, so the airport has to sell their 'screened' items.
Who was involved in advising the Government about restricted items? Airports,(Esp. BAA) maybe?
That's why I'm working towards an out of this industry, which I have been in since I left school and used to love.
Note the latest CHIRP, as a possible source of hope
It is very frustrating not to be trusted with milk for your coffee, but ok to be trusted with expensive aircraft and peoples lives!
It's interesting to note that you could theoretically bring in 10 x 100ml cartons in your sealed bag, but not a 350 ml coke etc.
Funny, you can't buy drinks or milk in less than 250 ml, so the airport has to sell their 'screened' items.
Who was involved in advising the Government about restricted items? Airports,(Esp. BAA) maybe?
That's why I'm working towards an out of this industry, which I have been in since I left school and used to love.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Front Stands
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yea good on you for setting this up!
Working both landside and airside at BRS for EZY check-in I can be told to go airside all day or stay landside.
I can not see why staff should not be able to take liquids airside, after all, havent we had our security clearences which in-turn says we are allowed in a restricted zone? And as such, means that we do not pose a threat to the security of the airport?
I have signed this and I am going to pass this website on to my colleagues who work airside all the time who i know will sign this!!
Regards
Gareth
Working both landside and airside at BRS for EZY check-in I can be told to go airside all day or stay landside.
I can not see why staff should not be able to take liquids airside, after all, havent we had our security clearences which in-turn says we are allowed in a restricted zone? And as such, means that we do not pose a threat to the security of the airport?
I have signed this and I am going to pass this website on to my colleagues who work airside all the time who i know will sign this!!
Regards
Gareth
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The response:
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page15721.asp
Took them 1 year to respond and what with? this piece of bull-crap? Let's face it, the gummi'nt only listens to who it wants. Including liars.
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page15721.asp
Took them 1 year to respond and what with? this piece of bull-crap? Let's face it, the gummi'nt only listens to who it wants. Including liars.
Last edited by Superpilot; 10th Jun 2008 at 16:37.
Do these people at your DOT know that crew in the rest of Europe (and most countries of the world) are allowed to bring as much liquid with them as they like? In Germany (don't know about other countries) passengers can also bring knives with blades of up to 6cms with them, small scissors too. I am quite happy that it is so much easier for us outside the UK - I hate airlining from the UK because I always have to check-in my crew-luggage. Normally I travel with my crew-luggage in the cabin, always!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously, we are a complete bunch of idiots who don't understand the first thing about aviation security. The font of all knowledge is to be found within the Department for Transport and these guys have their fingers truly on its pulse (although I think, firmly grasped around their veined members might be more accurate). So we needn't worry, the checks are necessary and required and all the naughty people will be prevented from doing horrible things because of them (the image of the toll booth in Blazing Saddles comes to mind). And as they are doing a review, they'll no doubt recommend no changes - because they were right all along!
As bunch of jokers current running this country days appear to numbered, how about ignoring this lot and instead start fresh with Theresa Villiers mailto:[email protected]. Dishing the dirt on the current fiasco might also put pressure on the current mob (or is the collective noun for group politicians a "Jerkel"?) to think twice.
PM
As bunch of jokers current running this country days appear to numbered, how about ignoring this lot and instead start fresh with Theresa Villiers mailto:[email protected]. Dishing the dirt on the current fiasco might also put pressure on the current mob (or is the collective noun for group politicians a "Jerkel"?) to think twice.
PM
Our overriding priority is the protect passengers and all those who work in the aviation industry, primarily from acts of terrorism. The threat to aviation in the UK remains both real and serious, which is why the Department keeps all security measures under constant review.
All staff that work in the Restricted Zone (airside) have to undergo background checks as a condition of pass issue, but it is also right that they are screened in the same way that passengers are. This is because searching and screening is an effective of ensuring potentially dangerous items are not carried into the Restricted Zone.
This does not imply a lack of trust of these professionals, or that they are any more susceptible to terrorist sympathies than any other group. We simply cannot assume that members of staff at our airports would never be involved in supporting terrorism, whether deliberate, unintended or coerced.
No single measure can provide a complete solution to security - even after having their background checked a member of staff could still subsequently be found to be colluding with or being coerced by terrorists and provide a means to attack any aircraft, and not just the one that member of aircrew may be flying on. We should not take this risk.
That is why the physical check is an integral part of our security procedures.
Any reports of intimidation or aggressive behaviour by security staff at airports should be addressed and resolved locally with the respective Aerodrome Manager.
Measures remain under constant review and we will adjust them where possible to reduce the burden on all concerned, while maintaining robust security.
In December 2007 The Secretary of State for Transport announced an independent review of how personnel security is delivered across the transport sector, including background and identity checks and related measures. It will provide a timely health check of current arrangements across the sector. The review is expected to conclude its report during the summer.
All staff that work in the Restricted Zone (airside) have to undergo background checks as a condition of pass issue, but it is also right that they are screened in the same way that passengers are. This is because searching and screening is an effective of ensuring potentially dangerous items are not carried into the Restricted Zone.
This does not imply a lack of trust of these professionals, or that they are any more susceptible to terrorist sympathies than any other group. We simply cannot assume that members of staff at our airports would never be involved in supporting terrorism, whether deliberate, unintended or coerced.
No single measure can provide a complete solution to security - even after having their background checked a member of staff could still subsequently be found to be colluding with or being coerced by terrorists and provide a means to attack any aircraft, and not just the one that member of aircrew may be flying on. We should not take this risk.
That is why the physical check is an integral part of our security procedures.
Any reports of intimidation or aggressive behaviour by security staff at airports should be addressed and resolved locally with the respective Aerodrome Manager.
Measures remain under constant review and we will adjust them where possible to reduce the burden on all concerned, while maintaining robust security.
In December 2007 The Secretary of State for Transport announced an independent review of how personnel security is delivered across the transport sector, including background and identity checks and related measures. It will provide a timely health check of current arrangements across the sector. The review is expected to conclude its report during the summer.
Country being run by absolute tossers!
Extract from The Response
Bland, ineffectual nonsense, and one suspects that the writer knows that it is. Spare us the meaningless buzzwords like "Addressed and Resolved". How would an operating aircrew actually do that.
Another quote, this from the CHIRP Feedback Spring 2008;
Those of us who are interested in safety should dwell on this quite remarkable piece of pompous, circular drivel put out by the CAA.
It says
1. Because crews are trained to deal with stress, there's no need to change something that causes stress.
2. All will be solved as long as crews adhere to SOPs. Yes, well, we know that; but the problem is that perhaps they don't, due to the stress created by the security process.
3. Nothing is worth doing unless and until a flight safety incident has actually occurred and been reported a such. This is CAA tradition, of course. Wait for the accident and then prevent it.
Any reports of intimidation or aggressive behaviour by security staff at airports should be addressed and resolved locally with the respective Aerodrome Manager.
Measures remain under constant review and we will adjust them where possible to reduce the burden on all concerned, while maintaining robust security.
Measures remain under constant review and we will adjust them where possible to reduce the burden on all concerned, while maintaining robust security.
Another quote, this from the CHIRP Feedback Spring 2008;
"The CAA continues to express the view that...aspects of ...CRM training should enable individuals to deal effectively with any adverse experiences associated with airport security, and protect them against the deleterous effects of stress. The perceived benefits of CRM training, together with the safeguards afforded by ....adhering to SOPs lead the Authority to conclude that the risk........is adequately mitigated, as evidenced by the fact that no flight safety incidents have been reported."
It says
1. Because crews are trained to deal with stress, there's no need to change something that causes stress.
2. All will be solved as long as crews adhere to SOPs. Yes, well, we know that; but the problem is that perhaps they don't, due to the stress created by the security process.
3. Nothing is worth doing unless and until a flight safety incident has actually occurred and been reported a such. This is CAA tradition, of course. Wait for the accident and then prevent it.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland mainly, rather than at home.
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have the CAA gone mad? How is CRM applicable at a securtiy post? I understand that as crew we are trained in CRM, but now security staff are too are they? If so they need a new trainer.
Muppets.
Muppets.
There was a petition last year asking for protection of the term "Engineer" only for people with professional qualifications (no washing machine engineers please), it got over 30,000 votes -about 10 times what this did.
And the response was just as completely pointless and useless. Actually probably worse, at least this time they actually answered the question (even if it was with "no"): the engineers petition didn't even really get that.
Makes me so glad I didn't vote for the current government.
G
And the response was just as completely pointless and useless. Actually probably worse, at least this time they actually answered the question (even if it was with "no"): the engineers petition didn't even really get that.
Makes me so glad I didn't vote for the current government.
G
So then it's still a question of where do we go from here? If the government won't listen through the "formal" channels then it's time to have a little "informal" protesting. Any ideas?
I Have Control
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North-West England
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wet Protest?
Let's see how our friends deal with a copious number of plastic drink bottles full of urine, innocently carried within crew bags. They really can't complain in having to handle and dispose of said items, anymore than can we when it comes to shoe/belt removal, confiscation of shaving foam, and the like. A single unified day of action would probably achieve a good result in terms of publicity, although doubtless many colleagues would be a little too fastidious to undertake this.
Alba Gu Brath
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Merseyside
Age: 55
Posts: 738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
even after having their background checked a member of staff could still subsequently be found to be colluding with or being coerced by terrorists and provide a means to attack any aircraft,
This is because searching and screening is an effective of ensuring potentially dangerous items are not carried into the Restricted Zone.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: On the Climb
Age: 55
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an RFFS bod, is still amazes me that when we enter the RZ from a CZ in our vehicles, Security will remove bottles of water from the cab as they exceed 100mls.
They never remove the 10,000 ltrs that are stored behind the cab!!!
They never remove the 10,000 ltrs that are stored behind the cab!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Another wrong headed idea.
Your occupation is relatively small and has little or no leverage.
If you got together with millions of pax and made a case for sensible security measures for all (you could differentiate between pax and crew procedures), then you might have a chance.
As it is, going it alone, you'll crash and burn as you simply don;t register on the governments radar.
Your occupation is relatively small and has little or no leverage.
If you got together with millions of pax and made a case for sensible security measures for all (you could differentiate between pax and crew procedures), then you might have a chance.
As it is, going it alone, you'll crash and burn as you simply don;t register on the governments radar.