Frustrated (?) pilots and security screening
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: third rock from the sun
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For some reason this tread has ended op with the opinions of:
a) I am a pilot and therefore above security
b) Get into line like everybody else
The point I was trying to make is that current security measures are not effective. They are expensive, time consuming, degrading, but other then window dressing they are good for nothing.
Security is in the business of either trying to make it look good, or trying to make some money out of it. If there was a serious point to it, I would gradly cooperate, because it would make me feel safer, but at most airports there just isnīt.
Security staff are not trained professionals. These people are not trained for the job, they are hired straight of the street and put on duty the same day. A few examples of what this leads to: My id concists of an officially approved government id, for which I needed to be screened and the plastic card which my company makes on their PC. Guess which one interests them; yes the nice plastic card (it has bright colors which must attract them). The other day I tried out my expired id, and I had no problem getting in. So i decided to try my airmiles card, guess what.... no problem I was in (I did have to take my shoes of though
).
If you ever have to go to a US embassy you can see what real security is about. It will take you about an hour to get in with a briefcase, but you feel really safe inside. The problem is that this level of security is not feasible at an airport, so letīs stop pretending that it is.
I am wandering when (we) the people will say enough is enough. Every time some new security measure is put in place we have to bow our heads because it is nessecary in the interest of safety. But is it really. I know somebody who runs a bar at my homebase airport. Since we have black labelled water as a terrorist substance he is doing great business. With the price of water increased from 1 euro to 2,50
he is really getting loaded. Why is it illegal to bring in a bottle of water, but itīs ok to buy a bottle of whisky once you have passed the golden barrier. Those bottles are not screened, apart from the obvious fact that at 40%+ alcohol they are dangerous substances in themselfs....
The most utter nonsense must be the code green, yellow, red thing. I cannot remember when we were in code green. It seems to me that we are always in code yellow which is sometimes increased to code red (usually after an attack has been commited). So the government announces code red, now what am I suppost to do? Look over my shoulder the whole day, checking out all my pax for suspicious people (which I would offcourse do according to the politically correct norm), just call in sick maybe and sit at home in fear? Reality is that this bahaviour from the government only serves to create fear and does not help me at all. If they go for code red (and they probably have good reason to do so), why inform the public......
Last week I was re-reading brave new world. I have to say that we have come amazingly close to the fantasy of a man half a century ago. In some ways we have outpast that fantasy
a) I am a pilot and therefore above security
b) Get into line like everybody else
The point I was trying to make is that current security measures are not effective. They are expensive, time consuming, degrading, but other then window dressing they are good for nothing.
Security is in the business of either trying to make it look good, or trying to make some money out of it. If there was a serious point to it, I would gradly cooperate, because it would make me feel safer, but at most airports there just isnīt.
Security staff are not trained professionals. These people are not trained for the job, they are hired straight of the street and put on duty the same day. A few examples of what this leads to: My id concists of an officially approved government id, for which I needed to be screened and the plastic card which my company makes on their PC. Guess which one interests them; yes the nice plastic card (it has bright colors which must attract them). The other day I tried out my expired id, and I had no problem getting in. So i decided to try my airmiles card, guess what.... no problem I was in (I did have to take my shoes of though
).If you ever have to go to a US embassy you can see what real security is about. It will take you about an hour to get in with a briefcase, but you feel really safe inside. The problem is that this level of security is not feasible at an airport, so letīs stop pretending that it is.
I am wandering when (we) the people will say enough is enough. Every time some new security measure is put in place we have to bow our heads because it is nessecary in the interest of safety. But is it really. I know somebody who runs a bar at my homebase airport. Since we have black labelled water as a terrorist substance he is doing great business. With the price of water increased from 1 euro to 2,50
he is really getting loaded. Why is it illegal to bring in a bottle of water, but itīs ok to buy a bottle of whisky once you have passed the golden barrier. Those bottles are not screened, apart from the obvious fact that at 40%+ alcohol they are dangerous substances in themselfs....The most utter nonsense must be the code green, yellow, red thing. I cannot remember when we were in code green. It seems to me that we are always in code yellow which is sometimes increased to code red (usually after an attack has been commited
). So the government announces code red, now what am I suppost to do? Look over my shoulder the whole day, checking out all my pax for suspicious people (which I would offcourse do according to the politically correct norm), just call in sick maybe and sit at home in fear? Reality is that this bahaviour from the government only serves to create fear and does not help me at all. If they go for code red (and they probably have good reason to do so), why inform the public......Last week I was re-reading brave new world. I have to say that we have come amazingly close to the fantasy of a man half a century ago. In some ways we have outpast that fantasy
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The one issue about a security check that is designed to deter is that it has to be very visible, especially on those attack routes that are easiest. The fact that a potential terrorist can see aircrew going through the same security checks as everyone else is in itself a deterrent to masquerading as flight crew.
We all seem to forget that the 911 terrorists weren't pretending to be pilots. They didn't have uniforms on. They were simply passengers with a limited understanding of operating an airliner. Now we have locked flight deck doors and a very good reason is needed to open those doors in flight.
Given these facts, what is the real reason for security screening pilots with passengers?
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone actually produce some evidence of a situation where a terrorist dressed as a pilot hijacked an aircraft?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Herts
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cant believe that so many people here are thinking of terrorists as someone who wants to take control of or crash or steal an aircraft. Sorry, but you gotta start thinking outside your box. I know it's hard, but start thinking like a terrorist who wants to cause damage and injury ANY WAY HE/SHE CAN. One person with evil intent who can get airside and eg get to a fuel truck can cause immense damage.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: everywhere
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rsuggitt,
I am a professional pilot, and operate out of one of the UK's major airports.
IF I was a terrorist, I would not even bother trying to gain access airside through the terminal's after all the boundry fences are not that hard to scale or even cut through.
Of course I could get a RPG and fire it out of a van, say a nice luton 3.5 tonne with a hole in the roof, at the end of one of the runways.
I do not have a problem with any security measures, but the security officers employed at my airport, and I am sure its not the only one, are not in any way professional, just jumped up little dictators.
Tony
I am a professional pilot, and operate out of one of the UK's major airports.
IF I was a terrorist, I would not even bother trying to gain access airside through the terminal's after all the boundry fences are not that hard to scale or even cut through.
Of course I could get a RPG and fire it out of a van, say a nice luton 3.5 tonne with a hole in the roof, at the end of one of the runways.
I do not have a problem with any security measures, but the security officers employed at my airport, and I am sure its not the only one, are not in any way professional, just jumped up little dictators.
Tony
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Herts
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Tony,
"Rsuggitt,
I am a professional pilot, and operate out of one of the UK's major airports. IF I was a terrorist, I would not even bother trying to gain access airside through the terminal's after all the boundry fences are not that hard to scale or even cut through."
Yup, that's another method of attack.
"Of course I could get a RPG and fire it out of a van, say a nice luton 3.5 tonne with a hole in the roof, at the end of one of the runways."
And that's another.
And if we all put our heads together, I'm sure we could come up with lots more.
And then if we're all sensible, we'd try to come up with ways to prevent them.
Which, actually, is what we're doing.
"I do not have a problem with any security measures, but the security officers employed at my airport, and I am sure its not the only one, are not in any way professional, just jumped up little dictators."
So the problem is not so much the idea of security measures, but the way they're implemented and the people who implement them. Which part of the issue really needs solving, and how could be be solved ?
RS
"Rsuggitt,
I am a professional pilot, and operate out of one of the UK's major airports. IF I was a terrorist, I would not even bother trying to gain access airside through the terminal's after all the boundry fences are not that hard to scale or even cut through."
Yup, that's another method of attack.
"Of course I could get a RPG and fire it out of a van, say a nice luton 3.5 tonne with a hole in the roof, at the end of one of the runways."
And that's another.
And if we all put our heads together, I'm sure we could come up with lots more.
And then if we're all sensible, we'd try to come up with ways to prevent them.
Which, actually, is what we're doing.
"I do not have a problem with any security measures, but the security officers employed at my airport, and I am sure its not the only one, are not in any way professional, just jumped up little dictators."
So the problem is not so much the idea of security measures, but the way they're implemented and the people who implement them. Which part of the issue really needs solving, and how could be be solved ?
RS
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not in the ivory tower
Age: 46
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is it that makes captains (overpaid bus drivers of the sky) think that they are so special that they are 'above' the security restrictions that EVERYONE else is subjected to!
When are Flight Deck going to realise Airport Staff and Security Staff do NOT make the rules - we just suffer the consequences of the abuse from staff who object to them, and the rath of the Department for Transport Inspectors if we do not adhere to them!!
I would have thought that so called 'proffesionals' would have had a bit more understanding and respect.
You may comment that security satff are not always as 'polite' as you would like - well maybe flight crews are not always as 'polite as they should be!!
I do not actaully agree with the current restrictions and I also feel they are more about PR than about actually making people safer - but I don't get to choose if I'm searched or not when I go through Security Numerous times during a 12hr shift - so please can you remind me why flight deck are so special? And I'm not interested in the whole 'well if they really wanted to kill everyone they would crash the a/c theory'.
I think the worst behaviour I've ever heard is a Capt 'concealing' a bottle of aftershave in his pants - because it was apparently 'essential' he have it with him during his 3hr flight!!!????
I have enough to deal with passengers and think a little bit of understanding wouldn't go amiss!!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I was only doing what I was told" has been the precursour to some of the most horrific events in human history. Rules are no excuse for loss of common sense or just being an ar*e.
It is essential that all crew members get through security as fast as possible, otherswise the system can break down.
Crews go through the rigmarole of security checks and get these nice laminates passes so when we get subjected to sarky comments, blatantly obvious idiocy and bad attitudes from security staff its no wonder people get annoyed. All pilots are trying to do is get to work.
A bit of understanding goes both ways.
It is essential that all crew members get through security as fast as possible, otherswise the system can break down.
Crews go through the rigmarole of security checks and get these nice laminates passes so when we get subjected to sarky comments, blatantly obvious idiocy and bad attitudes from security staff its no wonder people get annoyed. All pilots are trying to do is get to work.
A bit of understanding goes both ways.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not in the ivory tower
Age: 46
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do you think Airport / Handling Agent / Airline / Security staff are trying to do when they are going through security checks?? Get to work maybe??
Again why do Pilots think they are different??
Honestly I don't understand?
Again why do Pilots think they are different??
Honestly I don't understand?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps if the security checks were pared to the useful, with all the window dressing removed, we'd all feel happier because there would at least be understandable reasons for the checks. The liquids one is so easy to circumvent unless you ban all liquids for everyone, that it might as well not be there unless you're going to analyse the contents of each container. some of the "sharp" implements are no more dangerous than the free pens provided on some flights. There are other things allowed on flights that are probably far more dangerous, but this is probably not the place to bring them up.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, but why does it seem that flight crew (I'm not just talking about the pilots here) get singled out for special attention?
This is a pilots website and I am a pilot, so obviously I'm going to talk from my point of view. Everyone trying to get through security is going somewhere.
However, it IS different for crews, we are more obvious to the passengers and it doesn't exactly do them any good to see their pilots and cabin crew getting man-handled before they get to the aircraft. Most of them are stressed to 90 anyway. Did you read the report that came out showing the stress levels of pasengers going through Heathow? It was frightening.
Why is it that I always see security staff just wandering back from a break and not going through the same checks?
You have already shown you have an attitude towards pilots. Why is that? I always try and be as polite as possible to security, even if I have been treated rudely or aggressively. I have only seen one incicdent of an argument between a pilot and a security guard and the pilot was totally justified in my book. ther than that, I have seen nothing that would suggest pilots have an attitude towards secuity staff.
We all know these security checks are a load of nonsense, we put up with them because we have to. Having a separate entrance for crew would be a good start or staff who don't automatically treat you like a terrorist.
Yes, it must be a mind numbing job and having to deal with that many people is bound to be wearing, but a bit of courtesy wouldn't go amiss.
This is a pilots website and I am a pilot, so obviously I'm going to talk from my point of view. Everyone trying to get through security is going somewhere.
However, it IS different for crews, we are more obvious to the passengers and it doesn't exactly do them any good to see their pilots and cabin crew getting man-handled before they get to the aircraft. Most of them are stressed to 90 anyway. Did you read the report that came out showing the stress levels of pasengers going through Heathow? It was frightening.
Why is it that I always see security staff just wandering back from a break and not going through the same checks?
You have already shown you have an attitude towards pilots. Why is that? I always try and be as polite as possible to security, even if I have been treated rudely or aggressively. I have only seen one incicdent of an argument between a pilot and a security guard and the pilot was totally justified in my book. ther than that, I have seen nothing that would suggest pilots have an attitude towards secuity staff.
We all know these security checks are a load of nonsense, we put up with them because we have to. Having a separate entrance for crew would be a good start or staff who don't automatically treat you like a terrorist.
Yes, it must be a mind numbing job and having to deal with that many people is bound to be wearing, but a bit of courtesy wouldn't go amiss.
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The flight deck is a place not a job title
Pilots are different because they are in charge of security on board. They object to being treated as part of the problem!
What issues have you with that?
What issues have you with that?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, sod it, I can!
Madam/Sir pilots. You are paid the most. Very skilled people and I trust my life in you every time I fly. Every time we all have to go through the 5hite that is security, lead and set an example to the rest of us. If we all have to go through it, then set the standard and take us with you. If you want to be my Captain, then Once More Into The Breach.
Madam/Sir pilots. You are paid the most. Very skilled people and I trust my life in you every time I fly. Every time we all have to go through the 5hite that is security, lead and set an example to the rest of us. If we all have to go through it, then set the standard and take us with you. If you want to be my Captain, then Once More Into The Breach.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting point in the Letters page of yesterday's Torygraph :
Your average terrorist fanatic wanting to punish the British infidels has only to check into a flight as a passenger from a BAA airport (a form of martyrdom in itself). Chances are his explosive-packed bag will be lost like thousands of others, and will not travel on his aircraft. It will blow up somewhere in the middle of LHR, or possibly on one of the cargo aircraft flying all the lost baggage around the world, causing confusion and alarm for the forseeable future ......
Your average terrorist fanatic wanting to punish the British infidels has only to check into a flight as a passenger from a BAA airport (a form of martyrdom in itself). Chances are his explosive-packed bag will be lost like thousands of others, and will not travel on his aircraft. It will blow up somewhere in the middle of LHR, or possibly on one of the cargo aircraft flying all the lost baggage around the world, causing confusion and alarm for the forseeable future ......
Litebulbs "Madam/Sir pilots. You are paid the most."
not freaking likely, unless your one of the chosen few going to a legacy carrier most f/o's start at 28K/annum starvation wages in any parlance. Add to that living within 1 hr of your base"very expensive" and a chance of being unemployed every 6months, pension shortfalls, reduced T&C's, etc.... Oh and Tennyson's Light Brigade doesn't tell you that after the initial charge most staff officers retired and left the "private soldier's" to the grinder. Sound familiar anyone, Beuller, Beuller
not freaking likely, unless your one of the chosen few going to a legacy carrier most f/o's start at 28K/annum starvation wages in any parlance. Add to that living within 1 hr of your base"very expensive" and a chance of being unemployed every 6months, pension shortfalls, reduced T&C's, etc.... Oh and Tennyson's Light Brigade doesn't tell you that after the initial charge most staff officers retired and left the "private soldier's" to the grinder. Sound familiar anyone, Beuller, Beuller
busty bird
If this is the worst behaviour you ever heard you must lead a sheltered life.
To me this attitude encapsulates everything that is wrong with so called security. Is this captains aftershave a genuine security problem? I think not. Nothing is endangered. The captain, we presume, did not use the concealed aftershave in some Hollywood fantasy terror plot. It is the whole focus on rules, rather than genuine risk, that is a major problem.
Security as currently conceived is obvious nonsense. Airport security is just theatre. Anyone who has to deal with it as passenger or crew can see this. And they can see a squillion ways that this security could be subverted. Misplaced concern about aftershave typifies the obsession with being obedient little drones rather than any real concern for safety.
And one other thing.
This is known as the Nuremberg defence. (I was just following orders). I didnt work last time. Each person has to think for themselves and not mindlessly do what they are told.
It is airside workers and passengers who suffer from the unthinking rule-following of airport security.
I think the worst behaviour I've ever heard is a Capt 'concealing' a bottle of aftershave in his pants
To me this attitude encapsulates everything that is wrong with so called security. Is this captains aftershave a genuine security problem? I think not. Nothing is endangered. The captain, we presume, did not use the concealed aftershave in some Hollywood fantasy terror plot. It is the whole focus on rules, rather than genuine risk, that is a major problem.
Security as currently conceived is obvious nonsense. Airport security is just theatre. Anyone who has to deal with it as passenger or crew can see this. And they can see a squillion ways that this security could be subverted. Misplaced concern about aftershave typifies the obsession with being obedient little drones rather than any real concern for safety.
And one other thing.
Airport Staff and Security Staff do NOT make the rules - we just suffer the consequences of the abuse from staff who object to them
It is airside workers and passengers who suffer from the unthinking rule-following of airport security.