Frustrated (?) pilots and security screening

[dixi188]

I've just returned to flying as Flight Engineer after 18 months rest in the hangar and was surprised to be told at Belfast Aldergrove that I was not "aircrew" and would have to be issued with a temporary airside pass as per maintenance engineers.
This was done by the nice security lady, with details from my passport, without any hassle, and as soon as I got in the crew bus the driver took it away to return it to security.
So they have a strange rule that just creates more paperwork for no apparent reason.
I know we are a rare breed these days but there are 2 or 3 A300's with F/E's every day at BFS.
I wonder who made the rule?
Anyway it's good to be flying again.

[Airnuts]

Re Fake Pilots Never Get into the Sky

A young man was before the magistrates court in Liverpool yesterday after being found on board a jet at LPL John Lennon

Apparently, he had walked in through the open vehicle gate before it closed and boarded the jet - a so called "last minute budget flyer"

The belief that the Ketchup Kops at LHR who make vetted employees scrape the red stuff off their Big Macs and the Toothpaste SS who cause queues and delays are about as much use ,or even less, as a blind girl of 98 giving them the once over
The continued strict controls over everyone who can't take water through security but can merrily buy it at the other side (how do the shops get their reservoirs passed security? Or who is conning whom and doing the extra business?)

Of course a nasty nasty captain could pass on a dirty magazine to some other captain and not fly himself. Of course this or that COULD happen and that is the reason for the security controls (that don't work)

But just think back. Why were they introduced in the first place? What exactly DID happen?
The answer is that NOTHING actually happened but INTELLIGENCE (no laughing permitted) informed that they had good reason to believe that something might happen or was even going to happen

I guess it was the same Intelligence that told Tony (and us) that Saddam could blow us all to smitherines in 45 mins

Geez, I was in Paphos the week before the Iraq war started and in Cairo on a day trip the Sunday before it started

Now one guess where the paranoia is coming from and one guess whether the chicanery is really doing anything to avoid the most terrible of perils

If your ticket is drawn then you go. Not before and not afterwards.
Worry kills

Airnuts
"You've never too much fuel until you're on fire"

[peebs24]

While this government leaves the borders wide open then we will all have to put up with security at airports. This is one of the "advantages" of Mr Blair's glorious multi-cultural Britain.

[Looker]

Whilst the current security regime is in place you adapt and get on with your job. What is indefensible is the fact that the personnel employed don't know their job, enforce the rules to varying degrees and make the rules up as they go along.

Can't happen you say?

At BHX I passed through security screen and handed my non BHX airport pass for inspection. Trainee security person attempted to swipe card, I told him it would not swipe as it was not a BHX airport pass. Trainer then stepped in and informed trainee that as I did not hold a valid BHX pass I would be subject to an automatic body and bag search and I would need to be escorted to crew room. Being based in BHX for last year, holding a seperate swipe card that allows access to airside doors/airbridges and being on the 'B' menu I queried his assertion. Cue change in attitude from security personnel. I asked to see supervisor who was equally unhelpful and confirmed her colleague's stance.

So I sat for 25 minutes in BHX security waiting to 'escorted' to the XYZ crewroom by the XYZ base manager. It being a Sunday there was no base manager at work so security eventually relented and allowed my FO to escort me. Net result flight delayed 10 mins.

I raised issue with my base captain - next day apology from head of security who admitted his staff were completely in the wrong.

The apology was welcome but the 'are you daring to challenge me' attitude of the security was not. My tongue may eventually recover from the biting it received that Sunday!

Looker

[Trainallover]

As a very regular traveller through UK airports I see the stupidity that all airline staff and passengers have to put up with.

Why don't all UK pilots and airline ground staff do the regular traveller a favour and go on strike to demonstrate to the Dft and the politicians that playing to the uninformed general public, who believe what is being done improves their safety, when you can see from the pages of PpRune over a long period that what is actually being carried out is major inconvenience for marginal increase in safety.

Why can't the industry set the rules rather than civil servants reacting to their political masters. Govenments believe in a modern society that it is their right to protect the public when the world is not perfect and never will be. By a strike an informed industry would demonstrate to uninformed Government that the travelling public want a proper balance and it is certainly not that way currently.

[stevef]

Flying out of Stansted (pax) on Sunday. Got put in the queue to remove shoes. Walked through the metal detector, ahead of and behind several other people. Watched the guy manning the footwear scanner. He was talking to his mate. Didn't look at the screen for at least 20 seconds.
Security: if you're going to make us follow these rules, at least play some #*$$£~ attention.

[MaxReheat]

Trainallover - over the past few years of rants and raves ((and many hundreds of thousands of words) that have appeared on this website there have been many calls for united action worldwide by the flying/engineering/cabin crew community to express their discontent about the current security fiasco with which the industry is blighted. You can judge the outcome for yourself. Regretably, the lack of any action is symptomatic of the disjointed and fractionalised nature of the industry, and of aircrew in particular, who will always moan about pay, conditions, allowances (and security) over a pint of beer but will, when push comes to shove, do nothing of any consequence about any of it. The main reason is the lack of a 'national' union (in the UK's case); we could learn some lessons about how to get employers to 'see the light' from our rail and tube driving unions.

[beerdrinker]

Legality of pat down searches

Please excuse me if this has been covered before - in fact if it has, Mr Moderator delete this question.

In other parts of the world if one goes through the metal detector and pings the bell, the security staff use a magnetic wand and pass it over one and ask you to remove the offending object from your pocket (or wherever) if it causes the wand to ping.

In the UK, if you ping the warning when going through the metal detector you are subject to a physical pat down search by the security staff.

What legal right do these civilians (not warrant carrying police oficers) have to touch one (quite possibly in an intimate manner) during the pat down search? It is my opinion that it contravenes my human rights to be physically touched in an intimate manner by a non professional.

Do I have the legal right to refuse to be patted down by one of these people and insist upon the use of a wand and if further search is required, demand that a police officer do it?

[hotmetal]

They have no right to search you. They can request and presumably most people agree in order to be allowed access airside. The same principle with searching your bags. They need to ask permission. As for touching you 'intimately' I have posted the following previously...

From the Sexual Offences Act 2003

>>>3 Sexual assault

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if-

(a) he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b) the touching is sexual,
(c) B does not consent to the touching, and
(d) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable-

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years. <<<

As far as I am concerned if I give a permission to a security person to physically search me I am not reasonably expecting that search to include a search of my genitals. If that person is doing it delibrately and not accidently then it must be sexually motivated. If it happens to me I am calling the police. It may be difficult to prove and may go nowhere but that is not my problem. My duty is to report the crime.

[widavjon]

A Security Officer may only search a person, be it aircrew, other airfield personel ,or SLF with their consent. If you refuse a search by that guard he should then offer you the chance to be hand searched by one of his colleagues, If you then refuse this search, he must offer you the chance of a private search in the presence of one of his fellow officers.
If you then refuse then you WILL be refused entry into the restricted Zone.At which point the Police will be Informed and you may find that getting onboard the aircraft will be a long drawnout set of procedures.

[Shiny side down]

The information provided above by Hotmetal gives a fairly clear idea of what is reasonable whilst being practical, against what becomes highly questionable.
I'm not about to suggest that there are people who have become airport security staff just to feel people up, but there are many reports now of this happening.

The security services in whatever manner they are presented, are as accountable to such regulations as the public they serve. However, their training, vetting(?), and procedures will no doubt ensure a reasonably even application of the rules.

But when it comes to airport security staff, where are the controls for these? I would suggest there are none. As I suggested before, there will be a great many of them that are infact quite correct and their integrity would normally be beyond reproach. Their conduct is most likely determined by many years of actually wanting to do the job they are still doing. (Notwithstanding a few oddballs that may be in there)
I feel fairly confident that recent manpower shortages in certain areas, caused by sudden changes in security procedures has led to less than ideal personnel being hired and subsequently let loose on the public and us!

Are these people to be concidered trained personnel? I would suggest- not really. The training will be tailored for the lowest common denominator, to achieve the best throughput of 'acceptable' personnel, as quickly as possible.

So should they be referred to and considered 'security' officers?
A policeman(or woman) is generally perceived to be appropriately trained and qualified by their uniform. We are however, allowed to request to see their id/warrant card, unless I am mistaken.

Airport staff are not in the same league, surely. They are 'airport security', but not security services personnel. Their presence in my mind is one of visual deterrent, and not much more.
If their only claim to perform this task is the holding of an airport ID, and given that they go through the same procedures to acquire the ID as You and I, then I would suggest on that basis that we as pilots are equally entitled to hand search the staff! Although I am highly unlikely to want to.

So as a first line of deterrent/defense, it seems that they should have the correct equipment to do the job, without physically interfering with the person. Not having the correct equipment should not immediately give them the right to do anyhting more physical. That surely is the job of the professionals.

I think this is something that needs to be clarified, before sufficient unrest is caused that undermines the whole point of having such a large visible deterrent.

WIDAVJON, from what are you quoting?

[redaces5]

The security inspection of pilots at airports are magnified. All commercial airplanes have fire axes in the cockpit. A pilot with a criminal mind does not need a weapon in his person.

[Rockhound]

The cartoon posted (#329) by Airnuts is inaccurate, for Gatwick at least. Last week I attempted to pass through the X-ray gate at GTW clutching my passport and boarding pass in my right hand. The security official at the belt insisted that I place my passport and boarding pass in a tray on the belt. I found out afterwards that, had I put the items in my shirt pocket, I would have been able to pass through the gate.
Do we laugh or cry ?
Rockhound

[Shiny side down]

We cry. someone must mourne the loss of rational thought and common sense in this world.
After that, we can start laughing like all the other nutters!

[widavjon]

Shiny side down, I am a security officer at an airport in the Northwest and as such I know the criteria as handed down by the DFT and am quoting from that. As for Vetting procedures for airside passes, for a normal airside pass a criminal record check is done,whereas for a security guards pass a counter terrorist check is performed

[Human Factor]

As for Vetting procedures for airside passes, for a normal airside pass a criminal record check is done,whereas for a security guards pass a counter terrorist check is performed.

Has anyone considered performing a CT check on pilots? After all, a pat down of a pilot is as much use as a chocolate teapot until they remove the fire axe, the fuel and the flight controls.

[fallen]

All commercial airplanes have fire axes in the cockpit.

Just out of interest. What use is a fire axe. It's hardly a precise tool to be swinging around an airplane. I would have thought some sort of prybar/crowbar would be a better tool.

[Puritan]

Be it the wielding of a fire axe or a crowbar... is verging on semantic is it not?!

Aside - it's all surely much easier to procure some old freighter in Africa, fill it full of high explosives / flammables, etc (call it freight / tractor parts?)... and file a flight plan to any London airport !

Indeed a modestly sized light a/c would serve just as well from any of numerous private airstrips home & abroad.

And I always did wonder if I should have told 'Disclosure Scotland' about all those serious crimes I committed abroad and that would never have passed muster in the UK... but hey ho... it's a need to know basis eh?.. and they don't need to know! Aside, I ain't got a UK criminal record for any of it so who gives a flying s**t!

[haughtney1]

Has anyone considered performing a CT check on pilots? After all, a pat down of a pilot is as much use as a chocolate teapot until they remove the fire axe, the fuel and the flight controls.

Wash your mouth out Human Factor, report to the "common sense removal class"
A counter-terrorist check for pilots? you have thoughts above your station sir, pilots are mere insects on the hide of the security apparatus...an annoyance that should never be allowed to scale the lofty heights of being considered PART of the team..we are a threat..a dangerous group at the controls who will strike without a moments notice!

[beerdrinker]

Widavjon,
Unless you are employed by one of the Government Security Services (AKA MI5 & MI6) you are not a "Security Officer". You are a Security Operative/person/man/woman/staff. Definitely not Officer. The word officer technically means somebody who holds the Queen's commission. Practically it implies a professional as in Police Officer. Airport Security staff cannot be described as professionals - even their own employers do not rate them highly enough to pay them much more than the minimum wage.