Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Frustrated (?) pilots and security screening

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Frustrated (?) pilots and security screening

Old 15th Aug 2007, 18:34
  #261 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Herts
Posts: 147
MaxReheat

"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. "

Please dont think I'm unsympathetic to the situation. The changes you describe (and the irritation therewith) have not come about because of anything you've done. Or because of anything you have failed to do. Or done wrong.
They've come about because things that we cant control or influence have changed. They've come about because of increased levels of violence around the world, of increased fear, of increased political involvement in countries far away and about which we know little.

I'm afraid that both you and I have to live with the change, as much as we dont like it. In fact, the only thing we can change ourselves is our attitude towards such things.
rsuggitt is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2007, 18:41
  #262 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Herts
Posts: 147
1) "its not your place to comment"
This is an open public forum. The whole world can read it and as it has no security of its own anyone has the technical ability to post. If you want a private forum, implement something that is secured.

2) Despite your dislike for what I've said, please take a look at what I've said and tell me in what respects I am mistaken. Tell me what the flaws in my arguments are.

3) "I am inclined to agree with the sentiments of vertical hold. Your opinion matters not in here good fellow. "
If I irritate you that much, dont bother to reply. If you cannot discuss or construct a case based on intellectual grounds, you do yourself a disservice by dismissing my argumemnts simply by saying I shouldnt be here.

By the way, no-one so far has agreed that we should try to prevent terrorist activities. Interesting.
rsuggitt is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2007, 18:43
  #263 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: LPL
Posts: 16
Angry

Please remember that all this so called 'improved' security post SEP11 is primarily to protect us, the PIC and his F/O, from unlawful interference.

Also, the terrorists we are up against are highly motivated, intelligent and well trained and if anyone thinks that the recent changes in security procedures (a la LAGS etc) are actually going to stop someone blowing up an aeroplane then you have your head up your proverbial desk bound A##

The crap about binary explosives is just that .. Anyone with some very basic chemistry can tell you the outlined scenarios are fiction.

It is all just more scaremongering to keep the population as a whole afraid thereby providing bureaucrats the opportunity to further limit our freedoms.

Get real folks. The bad guys have won.

Now just let my colleagues and I get on with the task of safely piloting thousands of people around the globe.
Nils Taurus Excretus is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2007, 19:25
  #264 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Above and beyond
Posts: 73
Ok, point taken.. However the main purpose of this thread is to discuss security, not whether you have a right to post in the aircrew forum. Not saying that you don't, however dont get worked up when people give less attention to your point of view.

you ask for examples of where I may possibly think you are mistaken,

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.
It seems to me that the whole point of this thread is people discussing how things should be 'fixed'. The current practices in place are not working. You have failed to answer how getting a pilot to remove his shoes and bare the soles of his feet is making anybody any safer?. several posters have already commented that the increase in stress levels to aircrew is having a detremental effect on flight safety, and thats not paraphrased....read a chirp bulletin.

It is mentioned several times previously that most aircrew seem to be at a loss to expalin the inconsistencies from day to day,It would be more understandable if these procedures were uniform across the board however they are not, in your own posts you state

One way to make weaknesses is to make exceptions. And as soon as you make a weakness that is visible to a potential terrorist
If by exceptions you mean treating people differently then this is already an everyday occurence.

By the way, no-one so far has agreed that we should try to prevent terrorist activities. Interesting
well of course they haven't, its a foregone conclusion that no professional pilot (or indeed anyone else for that matter) would even need to think about the answer to that question.

Right thats it now. had enough

Tacho....OUT
TACHO is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2007, 22:36
  #265 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 105
And how about these latest so-called "Security Briefings" we are having to sign for at LGW/LTN/MAN and presumably everywhere else ?
They are puerile, simplistic, pointless scraps of non-information produced by some jobsworth, which don't cover even 10% of the information in our approved Security Manuals which we're regularly tested on.
Yet at LGW we risk having our IDs (and therefore livelihoods) cancelled if we don't sign as having read and understood them.
jshg is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2007, 01:30
  #266 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Москва/Ташкент
Age: 50
Posts: 829
"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."
Get real mate. If you read the AAIB report you'll probably know (as most of us do who appreciate such things) that Keys contribution to the accident has always been undetermined. The crew room argument (supposedly corroborated by impressionable S/O's) was never really a factor.And it was 118. RIP.
flash8 is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2007, 14:54
  #267 (permalink)  
Buttonpusher
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bloody Hell
Age: 61
Posts: 428
Not to drift here, but why are you not as a flight deck crewmember allowed to bring a flight bag, an overnight bag and a computer ? There's plenty of room in the cockpit, I know about stuffing your computer into your overnight bag and that works, but whats the logic behind it. Incidentally I did get into a "disagreement" with a staff security screener in the UK as my F/O and I had computer bags, we were told to check them. Instead I told my First to check in his flight bag and I would do the same and our security screener would have to answer to my airline as to why my flight wasn't leaving anytime soon. We were then summarily dismissed with a "I'll overlook it this time". I must admit it stayed on my mind till we got to 30W, (about 2-3 hours into the flight). Now days I pack accordingly and stuff my computer in my bag.
FLCH is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2007, 01:09
  #268 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Last week, in DUB, the screeners wanted to see my Logbook. I asked if they were CAA inspectors, to which I got a negative reply. I thus refused.
They subsequently didn't want to let me through, after which I told them to write-down the reason not to allow me to my aircraft and send it to the CAA and my airline. I also told them to show in writing on which rule they based their request to oblige me to show my logbook. They then immediately let me through. Pathetic.
DO NOT ALLOW ANY CRAP FROM SECURITY.
despegue is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2007, 02:07
  #269 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Everyplace
Posts: 241
Screening to pilots is useless. I have an AXE in the cockpit. I think is a more efective weapon than my 150 cl perfume. Period.
7Q Off is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2007, 09:12
  #270 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Belgium
Posts: 81
And don't forget to smile....

At the Airport, You Better Smile
'Behavior Detection Officers' are now watching passengers' facial expressions for signs of danger


by Patti Davis

Global Research, August 18, 2007
Newsweek, Web Edition



It's a new level of absurdity for America.

It was bound to happen. Now even a frown or grimace can get you into trouble with The Man.

"Specially trained security personnel" will be watching passengers for "micro-expressions" that will reveal treacherous agendas and insidious intentions at airports around the country. These agents, who may literally hold your fate in their hands have been given a lofty, Orwellian name: "Behavior Detection Officers."

Did anyone ever doubt that George Orwell's prophecies in "1984" would

arrive? In that novel, he wrote, "You had to live-did live, from habit that became instinct-in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized."

In the study of "micro-expressions"-yes, it is actually a field of study and there are some who are arrogant enough to call it a science- it has been decided that when people wish to conceal emotions, the truth of their feelings is revealed in facial flashes. These experts have determined that fear and disgust are the key things to look for because they can hint of deception.

Let's see, fear and disgust in an airport? I'm frightened and disgusted weeks before I have to show up at an airport. In fact, I've pretty much sworn off the whole idea of going anywhere by airplane. It's bad enough that I might be trapped in a crowded plane with no food or water and nonworking toilets for hours; now there are security agents interpreting our facial expressions. The face police, in place at more than a dozen U.S. airports already, aren't identified as such. But the watcher could be at curbside baggage, the ticket counter or near the metal detectors and X-ray machines. The Transportation Security Administration hopes to have as many as 500 Behavior Detection Officers on the job by the end of 2008.

But what about the woman who is getting on a plane to see a dying relative? Or the man who is traveling to another state to see a cancer specialist in a last bid for extending his life? What about the guy who just had a fight with his spouse and now worries that a plane crash would mean their last words were in anger? We've all had the experience of having a bad day, being in a rotten mood-especially at the airport, which has become a modern-day chamber or horrors. On those days, doesn't it seem like everyone we meet looks sour and unpleasant? The opposite is also true. When we're happy and joyful, we look at others and see happiness in them. Or even if we don't, we look at them kindly and with compassion. It's human nature to look at others through the lens of our own reality.

Here's where it gets really absurd. Apparently, these Behavior Detection Officers work in pairs. One scenario is that an officer might move in to "help" a passenger retrieve their belongings after they've been screened. And then the officer will ask where the passenger is headed. If the passenger's reaction sets off alarm bells in the officer's well-trained mind, another officer will move in and detain them. Let's be really clear here. If a stranger moved in on me like that, I'd tell that person to go to hell, throw in a few other expletives for good measure and probably give them the finger as I stomped off. Of course, I wouldn't be stomping very far.

So while TSA employees are confiscating our scissors and water bottles, they're going to secretly be staring at us, looking for some telltale sign of terrorist intent in a grimace, a sigh, a crinkled nose? Who knows what? In the end, the Behavior Detection Officers are the ones who are really acting suspicious. Which is the truth of the matter anyway.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=6576
gb777 is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2007, 10:26
  #271 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Posts: 182
The trouble is that airport security always has been a knee-jerk reaction to the last incident, in an attempt to reassure the travelling public that it can't happen again.
The terrorists meantime are planning the next attack on the weakest link. Firstly we had hi-jacking, the response was to introduce screening for weapons on the person. Then we had suicide bombers/9-11 terrorists who were prepared to die in the attempt. So now we have yoghurts and metal spoons banned. Then we had the Glasgow incident and now cars are being kept away from the front entrance to the building. The next incident will doubtless be something new, several of which I can imagine but won't mention here for obvious reasons.
We have to be more forward thinking and looking for the next weak link instead of having all these dim jobsworths going through the motions in the pretence that it is making us safer, when it patently isn't.
Seat1APlease is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2007, 20:45
  #272 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: third rock from the sun
Posts: 111
So many things being said here, where to begin....

Well at the topic of security, I guess:

Security does not work. It is for political and not safety purposes. It does not help to take away a bottle of water from a pax and it does not help to take away the nail clippers of a pilot. Come on, we are smart people, all of us. We can figure this out. Why do we have to say: It's in the interest of our safety so it must help. NO IT DOES NOT, AND YOU KNOW IT, WAKE UP!

On the topic of non pilots posting:

Yes this is an open forum and everybody is free to post here. However I believe that a little bit of politeness towards the people for whom this forum was created might be in place. Concidering that most people her would (or should) be pilots, it is bad manners to be insulting us. I do not go on a police officers website screaming what a bunch of loosers they are. Please, let's keep it civilized here, please!

On the topic of behaviour detectives:

Simply scary...really scary stuff I just hope it is not true.
fortuna76 is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2007, 12:27
  #273 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 60
Apparently the security services will soon start to employ psychics who can detect pax and air crew intentions with magic balls and a feel of the head, they will compliment their new behaviour detection officers.
phantomcruiser07 is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2007, 12:53
  #274 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Posts: 182
Could be worse, it could be a look at the head and a feel of the B****!
Seat1APlease is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2007, 18:06
  #275 (permalink)  

Plastic PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,895


From http://www.flickr.com/photos/justinph/1202789443/ via Boing-Boing

Mac the Knife is online now  
Old 22nd Aug 2007, 19:35
  #276 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Middlesex, UK
Posts: 34
I know this part of the forum is technically for flight crew, but an engineer working on the line I am subject to the same screening process as you people several times a day and as such I think that I'm entitled to an opinion.

Screening of engineers and pilots just does not work. Engineers are allowed to carry leathermans on them, so I have a knife in my pocket and access to the flight deck (as someone has already mentioned the axe) so I could do untold damage. I could cause mayhem with oxygen and nitrogen rigs, I have access to many highly flammable materials to service the aircraft with (oils, cleaning solvants etc), which if compressed into a container with oxygen from the rig it becomes explosive. All the things someone in my position could do if they wanted to, yet I can't carry a bottle of water through. Why?

Talking to some of the security staff, the problem is that they find it just as frustrating as we do. They are given rules to enforce that many of them think are pointless, but they still have to enforce it because it is their job. It's a pain in the backside for everybody. Unfortunatly, for as long as we have terrorists trying to blow s**t up, we are all going to have to suffer because of some fat t**t who sits behind a desk making rules and never sees the reality of the situation.

Although security staff can come across as absolute a$$holes, they have to be that way otherwise some people would take advantage of it and walk all over them. It depends who is on the security gate at the time, but they are human, and many of them do have a sense of humer if you know how to bring it out.

The other week I went landside to get some lunch and tried to take it through the security gate to be told that my baked beans were classed as a liquid and I couldn't take my dinner back to the crew room which was airside.

I got a little pissed off and with my usual sarcastic sense of humer I enguaged my mouth before my brain and came out with ''Oh for God sake, can we let common sense prevail here, I've got a leatherman in my pocket, numerous flammable substances in the store room and access to the flight deck. I'm not going to bring an aircraft down by flicking baked beans at it am I?!?!''

At this point, realising what I had just said and fully expecting to be removed from the airport and arrested, I shut up before I could make the situation any worse. The security staff looked at each other, paused as though unsure what to do, then bursed out into floods of laughter before the most senior person on the gate said to me ''You're in luck, that security camera isn't working. I'll turn a blind eye just this once, but be careful saying things like that, you'll end up in trouble''. He then let me through with my dinner. Like I say, it depends who is on duty at the time.

I'm not suggesting that you should say stupid things like that to them because sooner or later you will come across someone without a sense of humer and get yourself in trouble. I was lucky, I got away with it. But if it's not too busy (it was 3am on a night shift, so I was the only person going through the security gate at the time) you can make the whole process slightly less painful by attempting to engage in a conversation, and laughing and joking with them.

Remember, many of them although they won't admit it, like many people here, think the rules are ridiculous. Unfortunatly they have a job to do like the rest of us
Pilot_in_the_making is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2007, 20:56
  #277 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: North of the South Pole
Posts: 1,007
''Oh for God sake, can we let common sense prevail here, I've got a leatherman in my pocket, numerous flammable substances in the store room and access to the flight deck. I'm not going to bring an aircraft down by flicking baked beans at it am I?!?!''
I know what you mean, but why should anyone be arrested for stating facts, as you did?
ZeBedie is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2007, 23:46
  #278 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Middlesex, UK
Posts: 34
Several people from our company had caused a bit of a fuss on the security gates and had their passes removed from them in the week leading up to this incident.

One person working on the security gate had even admitted to me that a couple of their staff were unofficially targeting us ''to put us back in our place'' stating that they ''have had a few problems with your engineers recently''. Like I said before, most of the security staff are really nice people if you have a chance to get talking to them, but there are a lot of power crazed lunatics that only do the job to boss people around.

At the time, these power crazed idiots were looking for an excuse to cause us problems. Effectively saying that I had a knife and a means to blow up an aircraft was in my mind a bit like putting a on red T-shirt and running in front of an angry bull. It could be twisted into a threat.
Pilot_in_the_making is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2007, 07:59
  #279 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Essex
Age: 50
Posts: 118
I've got am idea, which may be more worthy of lobbying the powers that be about, than trying to get security restrictions relaxed:
If we (grudgingly) accept that unfortunately the current security restrictions are going to stay in place for the time being, then what we really need is a scrict 'code of practice' for the security guards. In fact I would go further and wrap it up in some "human rights" context.
If a person deals with the police, as a suspect, as a criminal, as a member of public, then there is a clear and well known set of rights that both sides have, and very strict sanctions if either is broken.
This is what we need at the airports. These security idiots currently break the law (assault, sexual assault, verbal abuse, various means of obstruction) with impunity and yet if we even dare to question then we loose our pass and means to earn a living.
So what we really need to lobby MP's and transec about is not for a relaxation of the security rules, but a strict code of conduct and set of rights for the passengers and crew (and yes, the security prats), and a strict, written down, list of exactly what is and isn't acceptable, so that we don't continue with being allowed to carry yoghurt one day, but not the next.
AlexL is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2007, 15:38
  #280 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,254
Job Action Possibility

Perfect security would be achieved if all the engineers at a particular threw a tantrum at a security post and got themselves all suspended.

Nothing would fly and everybody could go home including security

The trick would be to ensure that any engineers flown in would throw the same tantrum.
RatherBeFlying is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.