Frustrated (?) pilots and security screening

[rsuggitt]

I dont know whether to laugh or cry.

Look, I utterly respect professional pilots and cabin crew. I trust my life to your skills every time I fly. I know that security is a bore, a frustration, a delay. And I know it's not perfect.

But I just cannot believe how naive some people are regarding the potential threats.

And please remember one thing the IRA once said (or something like it)....
We (the public and establishment) need to be successful in defeating terrorism again and again.
They (the IRA) need to be successful only once.

RS

[Lord Lucan]

rsuggitt

But I just cannot believe how naive some people are regarding the potential threat

Maybe it is you who is naive.

!00% safety is not possible. There is only risk management.

With the so called security, that infests and controls much of aviation today, the terrorist risk is minute, (far far smaller than risks we routinely accept in other areas of our lives) Yet the response is a hysterical, extreme, over-reaction.

And what is more it is obviously ineffective and an expensive waste of everyones time and money.

[rsuggitt]

"With the so called security, that infests and controls much of aviation today, the terrorist risk is minute, (far far smaller than risks we routinely accept in other areas of our lives) Yet the response is a hysterical, extreme, over-reaction."

Maybe. Maybe the politicians and the public need to rethink. But is that the point of the discussion? It's certainly not the title of the thread.

"And what is more it is obviously ineffective and an expensive waste of everyones time and money."

Why ineffective ? Have there been any incidents since the measures were put in place ? Any mayhem caused by people getting weapons onto planes ? Anyone wearing shoes with explosive soles ? Anyone mixing one pint of a colourless liquid with another colourless liquid and making TNT ?

[Lord Lucan]

The alleged explosive shoe didn't work, and as far as we know, this was the only case in the entire history of aviation.

The mixed liquid explosives, as far as we know has never been attempted in any serious organised way.

This security reaction is known as -closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. It is not normally regarded as a sensible or effective response.

[Bad Robot]

In Austria in particular and other European alpine regions, Romania, Croatia, etc; there are large Crosses/Crucifixes, etc, on the peaks of various mountains of the aforementioned regions.
When I asked as to the reason, I was informed by the "locals" that they were there to keep away the Vampires!

Well I have never seen any Vampires in those regions, so it must work then.........

BR.

[rsuggitt]

"The alleged explosive shoe didn't work, and as far as we know, this was the only case in the entire history of aviation."

Let's hope there isnt a second.

"The mixed liquid explosives, as far as we know has never been attempted in any serious organised way."

And let's hope no-one does make an attempt in a serious way.

[Lord Lucan]

And let's hope we are not all run over by a bus

[rsuggitt]

Me too !

And when I step out into a road, I look both ways. What do you do ?

[Just wondering]

Might start wearing a kilt !!!

Just wondering - is it only me (male) that wonders why my bits get rearranged during a body search but nobody in security runs their hands up to the top of a woman's legs under a skirt.

I also never see security emerging from a search below a burka.

I'm not a prude but it realy is starting to get too hands on and personal for me.

[Danny]

I have been advocating "proper" security on this website for many years now. Not the cosmetic, knee jerk, massed screening of bags but the same type of psychological profiling that is proven to work. At the risk of repeating myself yet again, it is not the contents of someones bag that is the main risk. It is the intnent of the person to commit a serious offence that we should be screening for.

There has always been some resistance to "profiling", especially by those who don't understand it properly and in particular by human rights activists who will protest that it will be used selectively and without regard for civil liberties. However, the whole point of profiling is that it doesn't take into account any one item of suspicion on its own. Just as someone's religious belief is not always reflected in their skin colour, it is their demeanour in addition to other clues that alert a properly trained profiler.

It was always argued that the cost of implementing such a scheme would be prohibitively expensive and the additional time required to check-in would not be tolerated. Also, it was suggested that the manpower required to achieve this would be too great.

Well, let's have a look at what we have now... Minimum check-in times for long haul flights suggested at three hours and two hours for short haul flights. Massive queues for security searches due to under-investment in staff and equipment as well as nonsensical interpretation of rules with huge waste in resources by screening what can only be termed non-threatening individuals who would ordinarily have been moved on after a very simple question or two by a well trained profiler.

Once more, at the risk of repeating oneself, it is not the contents of someones bag or shoe that is the biggest risk but the intent of the person to act out violence with the intent of disrupting a flight or worse. With the likes of rsuggit advocating blind adherance to the current rules without questioning the logic in use, we have the ideal (for the government of the day) scenario of compliant sheep following the herd in the false belief that the government knows best on how to deal with the problem).

Those of us who go through the different security regimes on a daily basis are in a very good position to see what works and what doesn't. Of course, there are many who believe the warnings of huge calamity if we don't follow the current rules. I mean, how do you hide an elephant in a strawberry field? Well, you paint it's toenails red, of course! It must be working... how many elephants have you seen recently hiding in strawberry fields?

That is the logic that the government are selling us at the moment. How hard has the current minister for transport been questioned on the 'one piece of hand luggage'? Not very hard at all I would suggest. She has even admitted that she will probably relax that stupid rule in a few months but for the time being it must be working because I still haven't seen any elephants hiding in strawberry fields!

Intelligent, psychological profiling with very basic scanning is all that is needed. Anyone raising a suspicion can be removed from the queue and questioned in more detail and if necessary, searched more thoroughly separately. The rest can move through the scanning queue at a brisker pace. It'll never happen though... too many Muppetlike ministers and their minions have made stupid, knee-jerk decisions and couldn't be seen to have made the wrong ones now... could they?!

[fortuna76]

And for those of you who think there is no money being made in the security business:

I had the honor of going through Liverpool airport yesterday. The security was not that bad, but what suprised me was that at the cost of 2 gbp you can go through the security fast lane.... Yes boys and girls, you pay 2 pounds and you can jump the line!! Now someone please tell me that this is not just a way of shaking down pax for some loose change.

[Oxidant]

(Danny)It'll never happen though... too many Muppetlike ministers and their minions have made stupid, knee-jerk decisions and couldn't be seen to have made the wrong ones now... could they?!

Yes, this must be high on the list of why things have not changed!
However, we have had a relaxation in the case of musical instruments.
Also, the politicians in a few countries are thinking of exempting themselves! (Should prove interesting if some of them were"profiled")
Lastly, as food for thought. I was deeply saddened by the incident in the current CHIRP, regarding the arrest of an individual, due to what proved to be a false accusation from a security worker. Why then, was that security person not arrested for wasting police time at the very least?
We are, are we not, supposed to be on the same side!?

[jshg]

- And that is the point isn't it? How can we express dissent when we see poor/unfair/unsafe practice? As the pilot in CHIRP found out, any dissent results in the police being called, DNA samples being taken, Standby crew call-out and delays, etc etc, simply because Security CAN do it.
In my airline someone did dissent - and all of the above happened, including a mandatory assessment by a psychiatrist, before he was allowed back to flying and his security pass was reinstated. No wonder we regard Security as the enemy.
Perhaps one of the Security apologists could enlighten us here as to what we should do if we see Security failing, but don't want to get arrested?

[rsuggitt]

"With the likes of rsuggit advocating blind adherance to the current rules without questioning the logic in use"

Hmmm, not sure I said that. I'm not saying the present system is perfect and I'm not against the idea of developing a better one. What I am saying is, given the current system, I do understand why pilots and CC should be subjected to the same checks and subject to the same rules; I also have an idea of the threats that it they are designed to deter.

I agree that I differ from some people in beleiving that the threats are real and worth deterring.

[emaint2003]

Blind adherence to the rules is certainly making the experience of flying less and less positive. A recent example of travelling through East Midlands, my young lad, 14 to be precise, not only gets forced to take off his belt, then he is given a body full search. His nasty rugby ball is then found in his hand luggage where the insistence is then made it has to be slightly deflated for "safety reasons", then my partner is told that her one piece of liquid make up of 50ml must be put in a plastic bag. A family of 5 travelling! From a profiling point of view no chance of being terrorists. Interestingly coming back from Shannon the security people could not be more polite, "so you like your rugby young man?", and the departure area was full of US military. It is interesting to note that the rugby ball had been through Birmingham and Lisbon security without the need for deflation. Obviously EMA employs aviation safety experts as well as security ones! I am getting fed up of the complete inconsitencies of airports. Take your shoes off, no need to take your shoes off. Rant over.

[emaint2003]

Forgot to add, after security at EMA what do I find, yes you guessed it glass bottles in the duty free, no that's not a weapon is it?

[Oxidant]

Forgot to add, after security at EMA what do I find, yes you guessed it glass bottles in the duty free, no that's not a weapon is it?

Tut tut, now surely anyone can see that a litre glass bottle of Vodka is not a dangerous weapon, yet your nail scissors, with their lethal 3/4 inch blades are!

(Or, guess which one makes more profit for BAA?)

[Life's a Beech]

rsuggit

You still haven't answered my point, that the scenarios you suggest having nothing to do with aviation, and the security could equally apply to Tesco. Until you can do so you must be assumed to be wrong.

[rsuggitt]

Just to be clear, are you referring to this ? "It seems to be you lacking the imagination. The only point in attacking aviation is the extra damage due to the aircraft's energy. Blowing up something on the ground in an airport is no more effective than blowing up something somewhere else. Why on earth would a terrorist go through the effort and risk of getting stopped by going airside, to an almost-deserted apron, when he could kill far more people in Tesco?"

While you can use an aircraft as a weapon (eg as in 9/11) I do believe it can also be a target. While the attempts to do so did not work (possibly due to luck), both the shoebomber and whoever tried to take liquids on board were trying to make the aircraft a target. So too did the culprit behind Lockerbie and also the bomber who caused an Indian (I think) 474 come down into the sea. Aircraft have also been the subject of hijacks, and in some instances (in the 1970's I think) hijacked planes were then blown up on the ground in the desert purely in order to get increased press coverage and attention for the organisation concerned. These events by the way did not make use of the extra kinetic energy of the aircraft.

Yes, a terroist can kill lots of people in Tesco - and on the tube and on London buses as in 7/7. And it scares people and stops them using tubes and buses and no doubt it would stop them using Tescos for a while. However, I know of no terroist attempt to damage a Tesco store so far.

Like it or not, many places have been the subject or a successful or otherwise terrorist attack. It does seem to me that aviation in particular is seen as a target that has great kudos, and I can envisage many ways in which a terrorist would want to attack it. So while things have not come to a place where we all routinely check under our cars each morning (and remember, the IRA taught us to do that), nor look under bus seats, I dont think it's unreasonable to take extra security precautions for high profile potential targets.

Once you do put security measures in place, the one thing you must avoid doing is weakening them. One way to make weaknesses is to make exceptions. And as soon as you make a weakness that is visible to a potential terrorist, the said terrorist is likely to try and exploit it.
I fully accept that real flight crew are unlikely to be terrorists, but of course how does anyone at the security check confirm that someone in uniform is really a pilot and not someone impersonating one ? And might it be the case that the person making a fuss about going through security, trying to blag their way through without being subject to the proper checks, trying to have an exception made for them, is really a terrorist trying to blag their way in. Possibly not. But do you want to take the chance ?

[TACHO]

but of course how does anyone at the security check confirm that someone in uniform is really a pilot and not someone impersonating one

Possibly by taking a look at thier valid airside pass?

tacho.