Frustrated (?) pilots and security screening
The Veloceraptor of Lounge Lizards
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: From here the view is lovely
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be very surprised if a terrorist would make a fuss at security. I seem to remember the IRA were always very discrete about their activities until the big bang. The 9/11 bombers drew no attention to themselves until they were on the aircraft.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Once you do put security measures in place, the one thing you must avoid doing is weakening them."
The point is that no-one is suggesting weakening the procedures. We are suggesting that the security procedures are not strong, are wrong.
You are suggesting that people will imitate pilots to get airside, but as I pointed out they can do less damage, realistically, than they could in Tesco, but since they are surounded by security-minded professionals, rather than dazed shoppers, and they are expected to behave in a very specific way, they are far more likely to be caught. What do you think it is like airside? Do you think that there are crowds of random people walking round the aprons and taxiways alone?
The point is that no-one is suggesting weakening the procedures. We are suggesting that the security procedures are not strong, are wrong.
You are suggesting that people will imitate pilots to get airside, but as I pointed out they can do less damage, realistically, than they could in Tesco, but since they are surounded by security-minded professionals, rather than dazed shoppers, and they are expected to behave in a very specific way, they are far more likely to be caught. What do you think it is like airside? Do you think that there are crowds of random people walking round the aprons and taxiways alone?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Herts
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Be very surprised if a terrorist would make a fuss at security."
Me too.
But given the stupidity of the people who tried to bomb the London underground with chapatti flour and peroxide, and the people who tried to drive a car into Glasgow terminal, you never know who'd be stupid enough to try and blag their way into places.
Me too.
But given the stupidity of the people who tried to bomb the London underground with chapatti flour and peroxide, and the people who tried to drive a car into Glasgow terminal, you never know who'd be stupid enough to try and blag their way into places.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Herts
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The point is that no-one is suggesting weakening the procedures. We are suggesting that the security procedures are not strong, are wrong."
So fix them !
I fully appreciate that point of view.
But in case you've not noticed, my comments have been trying to support the idea that flight crew should not be frustrated at or try to stretch the rules of the security that is in place at the moment.
"You are suggesting that people will imitate pilots to get airside"
No, I point out that this is *one way* in which I can envisage a potential attack.
" but as I pointed out they can do less damage, realistically, than they could in Tesco, but since they are surounded by security-minded professionals, rather than dazed shoppers, and they are expected to behave in a very specific way, they are far more likely to be caught. What do you think it is like airside?"
Well I hope you're right. But let me point out yet again, there have been in the past many attacks on airports and aircraft, and none that I know of on Tescos.
"Do you think that there are crowds of random people walking round the aprons and taxiways alone?"
Next time you are airside, take a look at the other people working near you. How many are there and how many do you know personally ?
So fix them !
I fully appreciate that point of view.
But in case you've not noticed, my comments have been trying to support the idea that flight crew should not be frustrated at or try to stretch the rules of the security that is in place at the moment.
"You are suggesting that people will imitate pilots to get airside"
No, I point out that this is *one way* in which I can envisage a potential attack.
" but as I pointed out they can do less damage, realistically, than they could in Tesco, but since they are surounded by security-minded professionals, rather than dazed shoppers, and they are expected to behave in a very specific way, they are far more likely to be caught. What do you think it is like airside?"
Well I hope you're right. But let me point out yet again, there have been in the past many attacks on airports and aircraft, and none that I know of on Tescos.
"Do you think that there are crowds of random people walking round the aprons and taxiways alone?"
Next time you are airside, take a look at the other people working near you. How many are there and how many do you know personally ?
Last edited by rsuggitt; 15th Aug 2007 at 14:45.
The Veloceraptor of Lounge Lizards
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: From here the view is lovely
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rsuggitt;
What is your aviation experience? Your profile suggests none
Have you ever worked on a busy airport ramp?
Have you seen the procedures to get airside as a ramp employee?
I seem to remember recently a major supermarket chain having to shut most of it's stores due to an implied threat. (just can't remember what the threat was)
A series of suicide bombers in major supermarkets at 5pm on a Friday would cause panic on an unprecedented scale as well as possibly thousands of deaths.
If the government insists on continuing with it's current blind reaction then all airports are going to have to provide seperate crew screening areas. One major carrier is already looking at the problem from the point of view that they are in danger of losing working hours from the shifts of highly expensive personell, with the potential losses that implies.
I was delayed yesterday because an engineer who had to come from base to my aircraft for a very simple check took nearly an hour to get through security. Maybe if the airport concerned had all the security channels open, or a channel for staff the delay could have been avoided.
Airside staff, be they pilot or shop assistant can't change the system, only those in charge can, and frankly I don't think they give a s*** about the problems they have caused. They needed to be seen to do something, so they did. Sadly they did the wrong thing.
VH
What is your aviation experience? Your profile suggests none
Have you ever worked on a busy airport ramp?
Have you seen the procedures to get airside as a ramp employee?
I seem to remember recently a major supermarket chain having to shut most of it's stores due to an implied threat. (just can't remember what the threat was)
A series of suicide bombers in major supermarkets at 5pm on a Friday would cause panic on an unprecedented scale as well as possibly thousands of deaths.
If the government insists on continuing with it's current blind reaction then all airports are going to have to provide seperate crew screening areas. One major carrier is already looking at the problem from the point of view that they are in danger of losing working hours from the shifts of highly expensive personell, with the potential losses that implies.
I was delayed yesterday because an engineer who had to come from base to my aircraft for a very simple check took nearly an hour to get through security. Maybe if the airport concerned had all the security channels open, or a channel for staff the delay could have been avoided.
Airside staff, be they pilot or shop assistant can't change the system, only those in charge can, and frankly I don't think they give a s*** about the problems they have caused. They needed to be seen to do something, so they did. Sadly they did the wrong thing.
VH
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Above and beyond
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you think it possible that someone could steal or fake a pass ?
Well I think it is very unlikely. There is information stored on the card.... its not the same as a buspass. Stolen...erm no, not unless there is a thief who is the cardholders twin... it does have a photo
.rsuggitt the more I read of your posts the more it becomes obvious that you certainly haven't experienced the procedures to get airside as an employee. I think unless you have experienced what the majority of PILOTS on this thread are talking about, you will have little understanding of the current situation regarding airport security.
Nobody is asking for security to 'stretch the rules' but is asking for consistency across the board. Why do I have to take my shoes off, when the pasenger channel (which is the next queue along) quite clearly do not? (Several of the pax found this highly amusing the other night). it seems a lot of the time the main aim of the game is to belittle aircrew.
tacho
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Herts
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"There is information stored on the card"
Is this checked electronically by the security personnel?
"it does have a photo"
Oh those are so hard to fake.
"rsuggitt the more I read of your ....little understanding of the current situation regarding airport security."
What has that to do with my discussing the principle that flight crew should submit to security checks ?
"Nobody is asking for security to 'stretch the rules' but is asking for consistency across the board."
" it seems a lot of the time the main aim of the game is to belittle aircrew."
Ah-ha, I think we get to what this is really all about. Not the desire to comply with and strengthen security, but suffering a blow to the ego.
Is this checked electronically by the security personnel?
"it does have a photo"
Oh those are so hard to fake.
"rsuggitt the more I read of your ....little understanding of the current situation regarding airport security."
What has that to do with my discussing the principle that flight crew should submit to security checks ?
"Nobody is asking for security to 'stretch the rules' but is asking for consistency across the board."
" it seems a lot of the time the main aim of the game is to belittle aircrew."
Ah-ha, I think we get to what this is really all about. Not the desire to comply with and strengthen security, but suffering a blow to the ego.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Above and beyond
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"There is information stored on the card"
Is this checked electronically by the security personnel?
Is this checked electronically by the security personnel?
What has that to do with my discussing the principle that flight crew should submit to security checks
Not the desire to comply with and strengthen security, but suffering a blow to the ego
oh and taking my sandwiches which my missus lovingly prepared for me the previous evening
. Thank god that disaster was avoided.But as you have already stated and by the content of your posts, you really do have little to judge my comments on
.tacho
The Veloceraptor of Lounge Lizards
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: From here the view is lovely
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rsuggitt;
Please go away. You obviously know little or nothing. The photo on an airside pass is not your usual polaroid c***. The card carries electronic information as well as the very clever picture. This is not about bruised ego's it's about sheer stupidity.
Please spare us any more of your ignorance and go and join the equivelent site for your profession.
VH
Please go away. You obviously know little or nothing. The photo on an airside pass is not your usual polaroid c***. The card carries electronic information as well as the very clever picture. This is not about bruised ego's it's about sheer stupidity.
Please spare us any more of your ignorance and go and join the equivelent site for your profession.
VH
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Herts
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I'm very happy to live and learn, but as for "Please go away" the answer is a polite "no". Regardless of my background, it's been interesting to see the differences of opinion regarding potential security threats and the means to deter them. You probably think I'm being unrealistically pessimistic about the situation and to be honest, I hope you're right. Trouble is, you need more than just hope. And for the pilots (for whom I did express my respect, if you remember) it's worth saying that of course you actually are the most important person on the plane. But for that reason, rather than security checks being more cursory, they need to be more thorough. At least in m opinion.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: home and abroad
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody objects to the more thorough bit, just to the way they are being conducted at present, which are mere lip service to safety and a huge unnecessary inconvenience to boot. Which has its own safety implications, by the way.
As soon as you realise that, I think the viewpoints are not that far apart.
As soon as you realise that, I think the viewpoints are not that far apart.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Above and beyond
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the end of the day rsuggitt, you are more than welcome to have an opinion, however when you are dictating to people who do this for a living it becomes a little harder to swallow. It is exactly the point that it doesnt effect your day to day working life, whereas for us, it certainly does.
By all means keep your opinion and points of view however i would recommend against coming onto the Pilots forum and reading out the riot act, just as I wouldnt dream of going into say... a forum for professional musicians and telling them everything I thought I knew about music., trust me on that, my CD collection is horrendous.
People are not complaining about the security as a whole, more the inconcistencies that seem to exist from person to person, which vary from very professional attitudes to downright obnoxious. As somebody at the sharp end I appreciate more than anyone the high priority ensuring flight safety, however this should not come at the detriment of treating proffesionals (not just pilots might I add) with a little bit of respect as people.
Tacho
By all means keep your opinion and points of view however i would recommend against coming onto the Pilots forum and reading out the riot act, just as I wouldnt dream of going into say... a forum for professional musicians and telling them everything I thought I knew about music.
, trust me on that, my CD collection is horrendous.People are not complaining about the security as a whole, more the inconcistencies that seem to exist from person to person, which vary from very professional attitudes to downright obnoxious. As somebody at the sharp end I appreciate more than anyone the high priority ensuring flight safety, however this should not come at the detriment of treating proffesionals (not just pilots might I add) with a little bit of respect as people.
Tacho
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Ruggitt
Let's try and make this as simple as possible. You go to work, I take it; perhaps at the same establishment for the past 5, 10 or 15 years? Today the Department for The Terminally Insane isuues a nationwide edict (and manages to coerce similar departments all over the world) that denies you the ability to bring a yoghurt to work as part of your packed lunch. Despite working at said establishment day in, day out for the past 5/10/15 years you and your yoghurt are deemed a security threat.
You have been nothing less than a law abiding citizen over that period, have perhaps given gallant service to the employer and held the highest of offices in that organisation...........and suddenly, you are deemed a security threat by a faceless, deskbound twerp at the DfTTI. You will probably feel peeved and disillusioned. You may even question why your yoghurt is considered such a threat to the security of the your fellow workers and, indeed, the state itself.
You know you are not a threat, your company knows you are not a threat; yet you are deemed as a threat in the confused and dillusional mind of the twerp at the DfTTI.
Quite a ridiculous and farcical situation isn't it; laughable, in fact. Yet that is the reality of so-called airport security for the tens of thousands of law abiding, security vetted workers at the world's airports.
Let's try and make this as simple as possible. You go to work, I take it; perhaps at the same establishment for the past 5, 10 or 15 years? Today the Department for The Terminally Insane isuues a nationwide edict (and manages to coerce similar departments all over the world) that denies you the ability to bring a yoghurt to work as part of your packed lunch. Despite working at said establishment day in, day out for the past 5/10/15 years you and your yoghurt are deemed a security threat.
You have been nothing less than a law abiding citizen over that period, have perhaps given gallant service to the employer and held the highest of offices in that organisation...........and suddenly, you are deemed a security threat by a faceless, deskbound twerp at the DfTTI. You will probably feel peeved and disillusioned. You may even question why your yoghurt is considered such a threat to the security of the your fellow workers and, indeed, the state itself.
You know you are not a threat, your company knows you are not a threat; yet you are deemed as a threat in the confused and dillusional mind of the twerp at the DfTTI.
Quite a ridiculous and farcical situation isn't it; laughable, in fact. Yet that is the reality of so-called airport security for the tens of thousands of law abiding, security vetted workers at the world's airports.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just remember Trident G-ARPI. Stress before flight caused the Captain to have a heart attack, after aggravating a previously unknown heart condition. 116 died.
Try as we might to not rise to the Security bait, sooner or later some new humiliation will be sprung upon someone who will argue. Assuming the arrest/breathalyser/DNA-taking/charges dropped is over quickly, the pilot will end up at the controls in a stressed state. No doubt rsruggit and friends will deny all responsibility for any ensuing disaster.
Try as we might to not rise to the Security bait, sooner or later some new humiliation will be sprung upon someone who will argue. Assuming the arrest/breathalyser/DNA-taking/charges dropped is over quickly, the pilot will end up at the controls in a stressed state. No doubt rsruggit and friends will deny all responsibility for any ensuing disaster.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Herts
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Try as we might to not rise to the Security bait, sooner or later some new humiliation will be sprung upon someone who will argue. Assuming the arrest/breathalyser/DNA-taking/charges dropped is over quickly, the pilot will end up at the controls in a stressed state. No doubt rsruggit and friends will deny all responsibility for any ensuing disaster."
Please look back over my posts and you'll see that I have more than once said that if you feel the security setup is not working, you should be able to fix it. I've not said that you have to stick with it forever.
"Just remember Trident G-ARPI. Stress before flight caused the Captain to have a heart attack, after aggravating a previously unknown heart condition. 116 died."
Well that stress didnt come from a rude an impolite security screening, it came from an argument in the crew room (according to the official report). But of course, this is something that we'd all want to avoid. I dont know how many people died in 9/11, but I'm sure we'd all want to avoid anyhting like that occuring again also. Does anyone disagree.
In fact, let's try to cool this down by establishing some common ground. So let me ask a direct question of everyone. Is there anyone who does not support the idea of attempting to avoid terrorist incidents ?
Please look back over my posts and you'll see that I have more than once said that if you feel the security setup is not working, you should be able to fix it. I've not said that you have to stick with it forever.
"Just remember Trident G-ARPI. Stress before flight caused the Captain to have a heart attack, after aggravating a previously unknown heart condition. 116 died."
Well that stress didnt come from a rude an impolite security screening, it came from an argument in the crew room (according to the official report). But of course, this is something that we'd all want to avoid. I dont know how many people died in 9/11, but I'm sure we'd all want to avoid anyhting like that occuring again also. Does anyone disagree.
In fact, let's try to cool this down by establishing some common ground. So let me ask a direct question of everyone. Is there anyone who does not support the idea of attempting to avoid terrorist incidents ?
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure we're all very comforted to know that it wasn't a Security argument that brought down PI .......
An argument is an argument. It is standard aviation practice as a result to avoid arguments before flying duty. The current rules are made/enforced by people without aviation training.
We know the Security set up is not fit for purpose but we can't (yet) fix it because those who enforce Security procedures are working to a political agenda rather than a safety agenda. Hence this thread.
An argument is an argument. It is standard aviation practice as a result to avoid arguments before flying duty. The current rules are made/enforced by people without aviation training.
We know the Security set up is not fit for purpose but we can't (yet) fix it because those who enforce Security procedures are working to a political agenda rather than a safety agenda. Hence this thread.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Above and beyond
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sruggit,
its not your place to comment, you don't experience it, except for maybe once a year when you tootle off on your jollies. you aren't the one who has to work to nearly 100% capacity after these farcical checks that actually do very little for safety at all.
saying well it prevents another 9/11 is folly. Scanning a qualified, airline employed, security screened, background checked professional pilot is not relevant to preventing terrorism, I'm sorry no it isnt..
I am inclined to agree with the sentiments of vertical hold. Your opinion matters not in here good fellow. As vertical hold said, I think you should go and enforce your opinions on a website that is more suited to your own profession, this is a pilots forum, for pilots, by pilots and if pilots wanna moan, even those with monstrous ego's, by crikey we'll moan!
tacho
its not your place to comment, you don't experience it, except for maybe once a year when you tootle off on your jollies. you aren't the one who has to work to nearly 100% capacity after these farcical checks that actually do very little for safety at all.
saying well it prevents another 9/11 is folly. Scanning a qualified, airline employed, security screened, background checked professional pilot is not relevant to preventing terrorism, I'm sorry no it isnt..
I am inclined to agree with the sentiments of vertical hold. Your opinion matters not in here good fellow. As vertical hold said, I think you should go and enforce your opinions on a website that is more suited to your own profession, this is a pilots forum, for pilots, by pilots and if pilots wanna moan, even those with monstrous ego's, by crikey we'll moan!
tacho
Last edited by TACHO; 15th Aug 2007 at 17:52. Reason: To sound slightly less irate
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any pilot refusing to comply with any reasonable security request should be disciplined and on a repeat offence dismissed. The only area of question is the reasonable nature of the request. They should be correctly subject to at least the same screening as passengers.