Frustrated (?) pilots and security screening
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: not entirely sure.....
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going through a security check with one of my colleagues yesterday brought us into contact with one of the overzealous twerps that this thread was inspired by.
Having spotted a 'can' on the x-ray he challenges my colleague who produces the offending item from her bag. Security twerp ignores the can and insists on going through her bag - when we queried this he justified his actions by stating that 'we've had a memo' which says they should do this
What is really annoying me - and I suspect many others - is the complete lack of common sense employed by security.
S78
Having spotted a 'can' on the x-ray he challenges my colleague who produces the offending item from her bag. Security twerp ignores the can and insists on going through her bag - when we queried this he justified his actions by stating that 'we've had a memo' which says they should do this
What is really annoying me - and I suspect many others - is the complete lack of common sense employed by security.
S78
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 60
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S78
The reason that there is a lack of common dog in security at airports is that the tender is often awarded to the cheapest bidder and that low price generally only allows for the recruitment of the uninspired, the desperate and the plain stupid....
The reason that there is a lack of common dog in security at airports is that the tender is often awarded to the cheapest bidder and that low price generally only allows for the recruitment of the uninspired, the desperate and the plain stupid....
As I tread warily into this .......
Are there not two seperate issues at play here?
1. The occasional behaviour (surly, ill mannered etc) of security staff
and
2. The daft rules about what can/cannot be allowed through, how many people/bags etc must be hand searched.
The first surely should be complained about to t he airport/security managers.
The second has nothing to do with them but is is a transec issue??
It's been my understanding for some time that in the UK at least the security search points are monitered by camera which records the processes.
These recordings are then used together with "test subjects" to check that the security staff actually do remove the items listed and search the right number of shoes/bags/nether regions in the manner to which they become accustomed (sorry .. trained).
If that's true then I can see why they are reluctant not to follow the daft rules and maybe put their own livelyhood at risk??
As for the daftness .. not that long ago I had cause to take through in the course of my work some items that would normally create mayhem and alarm if ever picked up at a passenger search area.
As I was in a vehicle I explained what I had and asked if they wanted me to carry said items into the search area or leave them in the vehicle .... thinking that it would probably require me calling the Airfield Duty Mgr/Security Mgr to sort it all out if I ended up having to actually carry them through.
I was surprised and relieved when I was told "it's OK, leave them in the vehicle" .... walked halfway to the search area when I was called back to the vehicle.
Me, thinking "he's had second thoughts, here we go" ... I stroll back ..... and am handed the mobile 'phone I'd left behind so I can take it through the search area.
The rules are daft but the rule makers are dafter !!
Are there not two seperate issues at play here?
1. The occasional behaviour (surly, ill mannered etc) of security staff
and
2. The daft rules about what can/cannot be allowed through, how many people/bags etc must be hand searched.
The first surely should be complained about to t he airport/security managers.
The second has nothing to do with them but is is a transec issue??
It's been my understanding for some time that in the UK at least the security search points are monitered by camera which records the processes.
These recordings are then used together with "test subjects" to check that the security staff actually do remove the items listed and search the right number of shoes/bags/nether regions in the manner to which they become accustomed (sorry .. trained).
If that's true then I can see why they are reluctant not to follow the daft rules and maybe put their own livelyhood at risk??
As for the daftness .. not that long ago I had cause to take through in the course of my work some items that would normally create mayhem and alarm if ever picked up at a passenger search area.
As I was in a vehicle I explained what I had and asked if they wanted me to carry said items into the search area or leave them in the vehicle .... thinking that it would probably require me calling the Airfield Duty Mgr/Security Mgr to sort it all out if I ended up having to actually carry them through.
I was surprised and relieved when I was told "it's OK, leave them in the vehicle" .... walked halfway to the search area when I was called back to the vehicle.
Me, thinking "he's had second thoughts, here we go" ... I stroll back ..... and am handed the mobile 'phone I'd left behind so I can take it through the search area.
The rules are daft but the rule makers are dafter !!
Interesting conversation with a major airports security:
Good afternoon I'm afraid you can not go through (to airside) with that airport's pass.
Ok we'll just go back to the Hotel bye
There is no need to be like that!
No its OK we'll just go back to the hotel untill it's sorted out
There's no need to be like that. I'll call my supervisor.
After supervisor arrives
Ok I'll allow you through this time
So next week we will not be allowed through?
No
Ok we'll just go back to the hotel then next week
There is no need to be like THAT!
-------------
Methinks some security types just want to wind crew up. and when their bluff is called and it is THIER neck on the line they can only hope that by being obtuse they can get out of it by saying the crew were being obstructive.
Good afternoon I'm afraid you can not go through (to airside) with that airport's pass.
Ok we'll just go back to the Hotel bye
There is no need to be like that!
No its OK we'll just go back to the hotel untill it's sorted out
There's no need to be like that. I'll call my supervisor.
After supervisor arrives
Ok I'll allow you through this time
So next week we will not be allowed through?
No
Ok we'll just go back to the hotel then next week
There is no need to be like THAT!
-------------
Methinks some security types just want to wind crew up. and when their bluff is called and it is THIER neck on the line they can only hope that by being obtuse they can get out of it by saying the crew were being obstructive.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: not a million miles from old BKK
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I came upon these gems
The first is positively Orwellian – in fact it’s very scary because it implies that, as far as American Homeland Security is concerned, this airport lunacy is here to stay.
And what’s the story with the presenter with the British accent? Is that supposed to signify British acceptance of the status quo?
Threat Level - Wired Blogs
The second clip reinforces what rmac said in an earlier post as well as all the other instances that have been recorded in this forum. If the cheapest bidder always wins then the ‘winning’ contractor is severely restricted in what he is able to pay his ‘operatives’. You get what you pay for and to hope to recruit security operatives with enough intelligence or common sense to apply logic or reason to any given situation no matter how obvious the answer may be is to whistle into the wind. (for ‘whistle’ substitute any other words you see fit)
ABC News
And what’s the story with the presenter with the British accent? Is that supposed to signify British acceptance of the status quo?
Threat Level - Wired Blogs
The second clip reinforces what rmac said in an earlier post as well as all the other instances that have been recorded in this forum. If the cheapest bidder always wins then the ‘winning’ contractor is severely restricted in what he is able to pay his ‘operatives’. You get what you pay for and to hope to recruit security operatives with enough intelligence or common sense to apply logic or reason to any given situation no matter how obvious the answer may be is to whistle into the wind. (for ‘whistle’ substitute any other words you see fit)
ABC News
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sussex,UK
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by paarmo
After consultation with the Management in a constructive and reasonable manner the system you will now find is much better.
It's no good throwing tantrums every time something is not as you wish. Learn who to approach and then do so in a reasonable and constructive manner and you will be amazed by the results. Do not be put off by rejection of your arguments and persevere rather than flying into a rage because someone does not immediately see your point of view.
It's no good throwing tantrums every time something is not as you wish. Learn who to approach and then do so in a reasonable and constructive manner and you will be amazed by the results. Do not be put off by rejection of your arguments and persevere rather than flying into a rage because someone does not immediately see your point of view.
I also have to say that, since BAA has taken over the crew security in the North Terminal at LGW, it has become an absolute nightmare. I've been through when there are 6 or 7 of them, yet you often have to ask them to pass you your bags from the belt as they are usually too busy chatting, flirting with each other or singing! To add insult to injury, last time I had to ask, politely I may add, as I left the area I heard one off them mutter "snotty cow" under her breath. Its a damn good thing I was running late or I'd probably have lost my airside pass shortly after I told her what I thought of her comment. It's not all the guys there by any means, but some really need to go ASAP. It is a security area, not Blind Date, Facebook, TV Soap update and certainly not bl***y Pop Idol!
Sorry, feel better now!
Jsl
P.S. Having calmed down a bit, can I make it clear, there are some very good BAA guys working at LGW north terminal, who are friendly, professional and efficient. The above rant is not about those people. It's just a shame the not so good ones detract from the good work they do.
Last edited by jetset lady; 11th Jul 2008 at 14:18. Reason: edited to add
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At LHR there are now a number of Poles and to be fair they are at least polite. For a job (BAA security staff) I am suprised at the level of staff they recruit and I can only assume that these are some of the better ones at the Job Centre. Mind that you want to be around some of the new CC, many of them only qualified as they had a pulse. Older airports / airline staff must realise that neither organisations attract particularly wonderful staff as it is just another job with payscales on a downward slide that will continue to do so.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK. You have all individually made yourselves perfectly understood. You are singing from the same hymn sheet as the rest of the RZ workers....
Now...What are you going to do about it collectively????
The Trade Unions are beginning to try and tackle the problem at source. This has come about because those of who are determined have pushed for action.
If only the Pilots could unite against the system in place then perhaps it would speed things up.
Time to stop the petty insults just to vent your rage (Understandable rage) and do something constructive. Please.
Now...What are you going to do about it collectively????
The Trade Unions are beginning to try and tackle the problem at source. This has come about because those of who are determined have pushed for action.
If only the Pilots could unite against the system in place then perhaps it would speed things up.
Time to stop the petty insults just to vent your rage (Understandable rage) and do something constructive. Please.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Herts
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The real next threat will not come through a security gate"
Correct, I hope. It wont come through a security gate because the gate is secured. Securing it removes one possible route for attack. Obviously, if security were lightened, there is a chance that this will again become a route for attack.
Correct, I hope. It wont come through a security gate because the gate is secured. Securing it removes one possible route for attack. Obviously, if security were lightened, there is a chance that this will again become a route for attack.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sonoma, CA, USA
Age: 79
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good Article in Salon
Patrick Smith, Ask the pilot | Salon Technology
"Now, do I really need to point out that an airline pilot at the controls would hardly need a butter knife if he or she desired to inflict damage? As I've argued in the column before, the requirement that crew members be subject to the same screening as passengers is wasteful and pretty much pointless in the first place, especially when you consider that thousands of other workers with access to planes, including fuelers, caterers and cabin cleaners, receive only occasional random checks. But the idea of seizing a piece of standard airline cutlery from a uniformed pilot is lunacy."
"Now, do I really need to point out that an airline pilot at the controls would hardly need a butter knife if he or she desired to inflict damage? As I've argued in the column before, the requirement that crew members be subject to the same screening as passengers is wasteful and pretty much pointless in the first place, especially when you consider that thousands of other workers with access to planes, including fuelers, caterers and cabin cleaners, receive only occasional random checks. But the idea of seizing a piece of standard airline cutlery from a uniformed pilot is lunacy."
This is a good read, and obviously, even the flight crews are getting the message that the TSA have the jobs they do because McDonald's wouldn't hire them. Michael Rivero
Last edited by Robert Campbell; 11th Jul 2008 at 16:20. Reason: addition of quote
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another good quote from the Salon article, which summarizes the whole gist of it:
"You ain't takin' this through," she says. "No knives. You can't bring a knife through here."
It takes a moment for me to realize that she's serious. "I'm ... but ... it's ..."
"Sorry." She throws it into a bin and starts to walk away.
"Wait a minute," I say. "That's airline silverware."
"Don't matter what it is. You can't bring knives through here."
"Ma'am, that's an airline knife. It's the knife they give you on the plane."
"No knives. Have a good afternoon, sir."
It takes a moment for me to realize that she's serious. "I'm ... but ... it's ..."
"Sorry." She throws it into a bin and starts to walk away.
"Wait a minute," I say. "That's airline silverware."
"Don't matter what it is. You can't bring knives through here."
"Ma'am, that's an airline knife. It's the knife they give you on the plane."
"No knives. Have a good afternoon, sir."
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: N. Europe
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they take your tools, no worries. After going through security, while flying as pax a while ago, I got a new multitool giveaway to bring with me on the plane with a bike mag I bought. No knife in it, mind you, but flathead, philips and hex. McGyver would have been able to build an RPG-equipped panda bear with it! 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Herts
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While you talk about the inconvenience and unpleasantness of going through security, can I ask you to focus for a moment on what we're trying to prevent....
BBC NEWS | England | London | Three men admit bomb plot charges
BBC NEWS | England | London | Three men admit bomb plot charges
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Riga
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rsuggitt
Nice mug-shots in the article. I notice not a single pilot uniform/licence in sight. But as it happens we can all sleep soundly on our trans-atlantic sleeper beds, safe in the knowledge that the flight-deck crew will not use their bottle of water to blow up the plane.
So Rsuggit, what is your point?
Please dont turn out to be another one like Paarmo, you guys really irritate those of us who know what we are talking about.
So Rsuggit, what is your point?
Please dont turn out to be another one like Paarmo, you guys really irritate those of us who know what we are talking about.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: not a million miles from old BKK
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes rsuggitt. They 'planned' to use bombs that they made up from liquids disguised as soft drinks once on board.
As we all know, as has been posted in the thread before, and which you choose to ignore .... it has been scientifically proven that to put together such a bomb outside a laboratory is impossible.
I put the link up for you to read in a previous post - read it and understand it for heavens sake.
What they planned to do and what was actually accomplished are poles apart.
I plan to win the lottery next week - I won't of course but that doesn't stop me planning what I'd do with the money.
Remember the TV show 'Citizen Smith'? Same thing. All sorts of lunatics 'plan' things but they never come to anything.
Yet, somehow, the UK's elected 'leaders' seem to have gone OTT with this airport stuff.
Richard Reid (shoe bomber - failed) He's the reason we all have to take our shoes off at the airport. rsuggitt, just take off one of your shoes and then try to set fire to it with an ordinary box of matches. Be sure to report how successful you are in this forum. It was a non-starter from the outset. Why was it taken so seriously?
Same with the liquids bomb. For God's sake get a grip on reality will you and let us all, pax and crew alike, get back to some semblance of normality.
As we all know, as has been posted in the thread before, and which you choose to ignore .... it has been scientifically proven that to put together such a bomb outside a laboratory is impossible.
I put the link up for you to read in a previous post - read it and understand it for heavens sake.
What they planned to do and what was actually accomplished are poles apart.
I plan to win the lottery next week - I won't of course but that doesn't stop me planning what I'd do with the money.
Remember the TV show 'Citizen Smith'? Same thing. All sorts of lunatics 'plan' things but they never come to anything.
Yet, somehow, the UK's elected 'leaders' seem to have gone OTT with this airport stuff.
Richard Reid (shoe bomber - failed) He's the reason we all have to take our shoes off at the airport. rsuggitt, just take off one of your shoes and then try to set fire to it with an ordinary box of matches. Be sure to report how successful you are in this forum. It was a non-starter from the outset. Why was it taken so seriously?
Same with the liquids bomb. For God's sake get a grip on reality will you and let us all, pax and crew alike, get back to some semblance of normality.
Last edited by Xeque; 14th Jul 2008 at 16:13. Reason: Addition to the post - my wife was on the Internet phone to Australia so I couldn't complete the original ;-(
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Ruggit,
It's not your job to prevent that though. We have properly vetted people doing that for us behind the scenes, not people with a checkable 5 year history and a disclosure check masquerading as vetting.
Well motivated and paid OFFICERS from a number of crown services both overt and covert within that environment who know what they are doing and whom, on the face of it, seem to be doing it rather well.
Airport security is there merely to inconvenience anyone they interact with and to flog overpriced plastic bags and envelopes to people who don't know any better. Perhaps you could tell us Mr Muggit how many interventions at security you and your kind have made that made the difference to the issue we are discussing?
I'm sorry but that is the long and short of it, you serve no purpose and merely act as a visual sop to the hysterical masses.
It's not your job to prevent that though. We have properly vetted people doing that for us behind the scenes, not people with a checkable 5 year history and a disclosure check masquerading as vetting.
Well motivated and paid OFFICERS from a number of crown services both overt and covert within that environment who know what they are doing and whom, on the face of it, seem to be doing it rather well.
Airport security is there merely to inconvenience anyone they interact with and to flog overpriced plastic bags and envelopes to people who don't know any better. Perhaps you could tell us Mr Muggit how many interventions at security you and your kind have made that made the difference to the issue we are discussing?
I'm sorry but that is the long and short of it, you serve no purpose and merely act as a visual sop to the hysterical masses.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 61
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a pilot or a cockpit crew member wants to bring down a plane, he has the biggest weapon in his hand, the control yoke.
Confiscating a few odds and ends at security screening is not going to be of any practical use.
Confiscating a few odds and ends at security screening is not going to be of any practical use.