Frustrated (?) pilots and security screening
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: out of a suitcase
Age: 40
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Security are not on a power trip, they are just doing their jobs! I would never say no as it is in place to keep us all safe. If something was found I'm sure we'd thank security for possibly saving our lives.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: somewere
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was wondering if there has ever been security staff assaulted
It's just we hear about crew being assaulted but never security. Staff search has been fine for months but while traveling as a pax i see the difference. People were shouted at, orders were barked at them and treated as if we were in a school line. I was very naughty and had a carrier bag as well, i was rudely told to put it in my other bag to which i replied "yes no probs, I'll do it while i wait in the queue" (which was about a mile long) I was told to do it now, really loudly and got everyone's attention. I said "OK but no need to speak to me like a child and make a scene". The man behind me got a bollocking too and a couple commented on the security guys attitude. He then proceeded to walk up and down the line watching people trying to intimate people like a strict headmaster, what a sad little man.
Whats even sadder is everyone is scared to move, fart, speak or step outside the mile long queue for fear of being refused thought security. I also tried to joke with the scanning people and it went down like a lead balloon. It's only a matter of time as British people are patient but someones patience will run out. I always say kill people with kindness but with regards to security i now don't even try to be nice i speak to them they way they speak to me. Respect must be earned! however some are nice but I've noticed that if one is having a bad day then they all are and vise versa as i meet really friendly security at LHR.
It's just we hear about crew being assaulted but never security. Staff search has been fine for months but while traveling as a pax i see the difference. People were shouted at, orders were barked at them and treated as if we were in a school line. I was very naughty and had a carrier bag as well, i was rudely told to put it in my other bag to which i replied "yes no probs, I'll do it while i wait in the queue" (which was about a mile long) I was told to do it now, really loudly and got everyone's attention. I said "OK but no need to speak to me like a child and make a scene". The man behind me got a bollocking too and a couple commented on the security guys attitude. He then proceeded to walk up and down the line watching people trying to intimate people like a strict headmaster, what a sad little man. Whats even sadder is everyone is scared to move, fart, speak or step outside the mile long queue for fear of being refused thought security. I also tried to joke with the scanning people and it went down like a lead balloon. It's only a matter of time as British people are patient but someones patience will run out. I always say kill people with kindness but with regards to security i now don't even try to be nice i speak to them they way they speak to me. Respect must be earned! however some are nice but I've noticed that if one is having a bad day then they all are and vise versa as i meet really friendly security at LHR.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
little man
I have to agree with monarch man about niknak, or should it be HERR niknak and his beer garden cohorts. If ever there was evidence of little man syndrome it is in his power crazed postings. I do hope that he is not employed in "security" at any UK airport, although sadly I feel he suits the present role. One thing to remember niknak despite blairs ruination of this country it remains free and a democracy, i have the right to object and seek recourse through the courts. Or would you see that denied before packing me off to a camp where work will set me free?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Humble SLF here.
To the OP - is an airline captain's position and dignity really so insecure that they can genuinely expect their gravitas and authority over their crew to be materially diminished by the denigration of being seen shoeless?
Secondly - much as I respect the pilot community, shoeless or not, surely Egyptair 990 teaches us that no-one, even a pilot with airline security clearance, is completely above suspicion?
To the OP - is an airline captain's position and dignity really so insecure that they can genuinely expect their gravitas and authority over their crew to be materially diminished by the denigration of being seen shoeless?
Secondly - much as I respect the pilot community, shoeless or not, surely Egyptair 990 teaches us that no-one, even a pilot with airline security clearance, is completely above suspicion?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: homeless
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a Captain you have no authority until you sign for the aircraft and get under way. Therefore at the staff gate you are just an employee with an airside pass. So if you are asked to take off your shoes then currently you have to. If that makes you feel belittled then i suggest its an ego thing rather than a power trip by the guard. Reacting only fulfills that percieved power trip as well. Just smile comply, be on your way.....and whine away the day as usual
Guest
Posts: n/a
is an airline captain's position and dignity really so insecure that they can genuinely expect their gravitas and authority over their crew to be materially diminished by the denigration of being seen shoeless?
I speak only as a simple controller. But many ATC towers are airside too! How many travellers would put up with the hassle of security checks just to get to work each day - even with the 'benefit' of a 'staff' channel........which is shared with First/Business class pax?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 42
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
J-Class,
Fair enough mate, however I don't believe that the Egyptair Captain having his shoes checked before hand would have had the slightest effect on the outcome of that flight.
The whole point is we have been through this all before, pilots don't require a weapon to gain access to the FD!
Fair enough mate, however I don't believe that the Egyptair Captain having his shoes checked before hand would have had the slightest effect on the outcome of that flight.
The whole point is we have been through this all before, pilots don't require a weapon to gain access to the FD!
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Secondly - much as I respect the pilot community, shoeless or not, surely Egyptair 990 teaches us that no-one, even a pilot with airline security clearance, is completely above suspicion?
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Security are not on a power trip, they are just doing their jobs! I would never say no as it is in place to keep us all safe. If something was found I'm sure we'd thank security for possibly saving our lives.
Or by the confiscation of a 125 gram tube of toothpaste. Despite a brief foray into the world of primary school science security could not understand that 125g of a dense substance was less than 100ml
The nice man who regularly asks me as I go to work "and could I have your shoes today sir?" is not on a power trip at all.
But the TSA thug at O'Hare who shouted - "YOU - SHOES!" was. I asked what he wished me to do with my shoes (inspect the soles, place them on a shoe scanner or x-ray them were all options). He repeated in a quite unnecessarily aggressive manner "SHOES!"; which was of no help at all. I guessed he wanted me to put them through the x-ray (but to this day it is purely an assumption). I complained to his shift supervisor and he was moved to the 'pushing bags out of the x-ray machine' part of the operation and glowered at me till my flight was called (I was SLF at the time).
Whether we should be subject to the same security as pax is a circular argument on many threads here. For me that is not the issue - we currently are.
That does not mean that it should give people the right to be abusive and or just downright rude. Unfortunately many are and they are in the unique position that most (crew and pax) are too scared to complain about behaviour that would be totally unacceptable anywhere else for fear of losing their job/missing their flight.
I usually only remember those who are rude/on power trips; and it is those I mention as people who simply do their job courteously are really not worthy of a rant
Last edited by Ropey Pilot; 18th Oct 2007 at 17:06.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blimey 420! thats a bit OTT mate!
I merely speak as someone who, to enable me to get where I am today, have done many different jobs and worked at all levels with every type of individual in many different industries.
As such I have first hand experience of doing a job wher strict regulations have to be enforced by the people on the front line whilst having to endure the pompous crap from a few self opinionated ego's, (and that includes doing airport secuirity work).
Now I accept that the very large majority of aircrew and aviation personnel are extremely co operative in the security process because they are professional people who accept that it's a necessary protocol which everyone has to tolerate to, hopefully, prevent a reoccurance of what has happened already, or worse.
The vast majority of Security staff are taken on on the minimum wage and trained to do their job within strict parameters, there is very little leeway.
So if anyone is going to criticise, blame the DoT - its very easy to blame those on the coal face but you haven't any reason to if youve nothing to hide (apart from your own inflated sense of importance).
That said, the screening process is not a great deal to ask and doesn't inconvenience anyone.
What I do object to is your reply to my post, "HERR Niknak"?
For goodness sake!
If you had any balls at all you would apologise for what I assume is an alcochol induced slur, which we all make from time to time and get on with life.
I merely speak as someone who, to enable me to get where I am today, have done many different jobs and worked at all levels with every type of individual in many different industries.
As such I have first hand experience of doing a job wher strict regulations have to be enforced by the people on the front line whilst having to endure the pompous crap from a few self opinionated ego's, (and that includes doing airport secuirity work).
Now I accept that the very large majority of aircrew and aviation personnel are extremely co operative in the security process because they are professional people who accept that it's a necessary protocol which everyone has to tolerate to, hopefully, prevent a reoccurance of what has happened already, or worse.
The vast majority of Security staff are taken on on the minimum wage and trained to do their job within strict parameters, there is very little leeway.
So if anyone is going to criticise, blame the DoT - its very easy to blame those on the coal face but you haven't any reason to if youve nothing to hide (apart from your own inflated sense of importance).
That said, the screening process is not a great deal to ask and doesn't inconvenience anyone.
What I do object to is your reply to my post, "HERR Niknak"?
For goodness sake!
If you had any balls at all you would apologise for what I assume is an alcochol induced slur, which we all make from time to time and get on with life.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm, I take all your points - yes, the captain already has access to the flight deck.
Let us suppose for a minute that the whole shoe bomb concept isn't completely absurd, and that it might in fact be possible to put some live explosive, enough to bring down an aircraft, in the heel of a shoe. The shoe security check makes that assumption. It's not a great leap of faith to also believe that a timer and detonator could also be incorporated into said heel, in which case the possibility of a shoe swap (let's face it, it happened all the time at primary school!) where the captain might not know what was in his shoe, starts to materialise.
As I say, this is an example of starting with an absurd proposition and then squaring it, but isn't the general idea to ensure things brought on to the plane are screened (some items randomly; some always)? The motivation of the passenger, or crew member, is not neccesarily the operative factor.
Let us suppose for a minute that the whole shoe bomb concept isn't completely absurd, and that it might in fact be possible to put some live explosive, enough to bring down an aircraft, in the heel of a shoe. The shoe security check makes that assumption. It's not a great leap of faith to also believe that a timer and detonator could also be incorporated into said heel, in which case the possibility of a shoe swap (let's face it, it happened all the time at primary school!) where the captain might not know what was in his shoe, starts to materialise.
As I say, this is an example of starting with an absurd proposition and then squaring it, but isn't the general idea to ensure things brought on to the plane are screened (some items randomly; some always)? The motivation of the passenger, or crew member, is not neccesarily the operative factor.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
glad - rag
Yes, I've heard of justified complaints of this going on and whilst it does happen it's very rare and the premis is no justification for refusing to co operate.
If an assault does take place, make a huge fuss and a scene, call the police and make a formal complaint.
Yes, I've heard of justified complaints of this going on and whilst it does happen it's very rare and the premis is no justification for refusing to co operate.
If an assault does take place, make a huge fuss and a scene, call the police and make a formal complaint.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes - the flight deck access thing - a little unnecessary as a comparison.
Consider the captain who might wish to (a) hijack the flight without coorperation of the P2 and needs a necessary implement, (b) wishes to smuggles guns/drugs, or (c) wishes to injure / kill / assassinate another crewmember or passenger.
While all fanciful, the "I have access to the flightdeck" argument is tired and misleading - it assumes that the only bad thing you can do is to fly the aircraft into the ground, or fly it elsewhere once P2 has been locked out. There are many more scenarios that certainly require the same security on all the crew. And indeed on armed security marshals should they be flying that day.
Consider the captain who might wish to (a) hijack the flight without coorperation of the P2 and needs a necessary implement, (b) wishes to smuggles guns/drugs, or (c) wishes to injure / kill / assassinate another crewmember or passenger.
While all fanciful, the "I have access to the flightdeck" argument is tired and misleading - it assumes that the only bad thing you can do is to fly the aircraft into the ground, or fly it elsewhere once P2 has been locked out. There are many more scenarios that certainly require the same security on all the crew. And indeed on armed security marshals should they be flying that day.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Abroad
Posts: 1,172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PFJI, as a non-commercial pilot.
I do object[1] to having a fellow civilian patting me down or going through my things, so something which has worked for me so far is to request that any searches of my person or belongings be done by a police officer or the military. Invariably so far it has resulted in a search being carried out politely and conscientiously by professionals who understand what they're doing.
I like to think that by doing that I am making a small but real contribution to security (leaving aside the debate about the effectiveness of those searches), and to society by not letting citizens be forced to intrude on each other's privacy. I am more than willing to accept the small inconvenience of having to wait a few minutes for an officer to attend when there is none present--doing otherwise would be egoistic.
[1] As is my right, which is why they have to ask for permission.
I do object[1] to having a fellow civilian patting me down or going through my things, so something which has worked for me so far is to request that any searches of my person or belongings be done by a police officer or the military. Invariably so far it has resulted in a search being carried out politely and conscientiously by professionals who understand what they're doing.
I like to think that by doing that I am making a small but real contribution to security (leaving aside the debate about the effectiveness of those searches), and to society by not letting citizens be forced to intrude on each other's privacy. I am more than willing to accept the small inconvenience of having to wait a few minutes for an officer to attend when there is none present--doing otherwise would be egoistic.
[1] As is my right, which is why they have to ask for permission.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SWE
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seriously J-Class... the terrorists making a shoe swap so that the pilot brings a bomb in his shoe on to an aircraft??!!
Well, actually that exemplifies how much reality there is behind todays security screening of pilots.
Well, actually that exemplifies how much reality there is behind todays security screening of pilots.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It didn't take long for the 'non-aircrew-chip-on-their-shoulder' crowd to chip in with their 'don't-think-you-are-anything-special' driven arguments.
Perhaps those who come up with imaginative (a) (b) or (c) scenarios , could instead provide just one example, of where security have stopped a cockpit crew member of doing any of the things they suggest, or even an example of anyone actually having done what they suggest.
Perhaps those who come up with imaginative (a) (b) or (c) scenarios , could instead provide just one example, of where security have stopped a cockpit crew member of doing any of the things they suggest, or even an example of anyone actually having done what they suggest.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
doesn't inconvenience anyone.
You obviously come to work in underpants and no shoes as that is the only way you can go to work without being inconvenienced - Take off shoes, remove all keys, coins, mobile phones, jacket, laptop - then still get frisked and spoken to rudely because you forgot to remove the foil wrapped cough sweets - no, not an inconvenience at all
Whilst I agree a degree of security is needed there should in today's security situation be security profiling - and bona fide crew should be well down the list instead of at the top as seems to be the case.
