Frustrated (?) pilots and security screening
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Herts
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Aww rsuggitt - don't go. What will we do without you? There'll only be paarma left. 
Besides, we can't let you go until we know how you got on with setting fire to your shoe. At least give us the benefit of admitting that the shoe check is a complete waste of time."
I have no intention of burning my shoes, they're too expensive to waste. I also have no intention of getting hold of a detonator, and hiding it in the sole of my traininers.
"p.s. The guys don't need to go on strike. All that is required for all of us - pax and crew - is to 'JUST SAY 'NO'!'"
Let me be the first to encourage you to all say 'NO'.
It'll be fun reading about it in the papers.
Besides, we can't let you go until we know how you got on with setting fire to your shoe. At least give us the benefit of admitting that the shoe check is a complete waste of time."
I have no intention of burning my shoes, they're too expensive to waste. I also have no intention of getting hold of a detonator, and hiding it in the sole of my traininers.
"p.s. The guys don't need to go on strike. All that is required for all of us - pax and crew - is to 'JUST SAY 'NO'!'"
Let me be the first to encourage you to all say 'NO'.
It'll be fun reading about it in the papers.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Herts
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Rsuggitt, everyday, I put my life on the line 100% for you/yours, I am the last line of defence, so at least give me the courtesy that you would give the security folks. Failing that go hide in your hole because the extremists will have won their economic "jihad""
In what way have I been discourteous?
In what way have I been discourteous?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rsuggit wrote
"When may I expect you to counter the points I made about the right educated people, with the right background and level of vetting and ongoing monitoring, with the right access to the pertinent intel, from the right crown service working in partnership with other crown services, doing the REAL job that security have no hope in a month of Sundays doing??"
I'm very happy that we have such people working for us.
As soon as you can guarantee with your life that they will be 100% accurate and successful, I'l be even happier.
But, we seem to have reached an impass, and neither has convinced the other. I'm surprised at these negative attitudes to security, but I cant sway you over to my point of view. I'm a little surprised considering that you life is more at risk from terrorism than mine.
However, before we come to a standstill, I have only one last suggestion. If you feel it's really that bad, do what any other employee has a right to so... go on strike.
Never have I read a more provocative and uninformed view of the issues at hand. I suspect that it's because you are either involved with the issue from the other side of the security gates or it's because you simply do not understand the issue at hand.
Many of those involved at the sharp end of the aviation business are risk adverse - it's the nature of the business. Check, check and double check. With this comes an eye for detail but it's an experienced eye and one that takes in any number of details. I'm sorry to say this but it's something that our friends in security do not share, they are not motivated or trained to anywhere near the standard required to offer the kind of protection you believe that they offer. And the reality is that because of the pay and terms and conditions offered to these operatives, the role attracts the uneducated, uninterested and those whose communication skills which are not up to the level of interaction that the role requires. It's a double edged sword - they end up alienating the very people that would work with them to facilitate the responsibilities we all have in the airside environment. It's not rocket science.
I honestly believe that when Police, Customs and Immigration Officers cast an eye over us in the ports, they know exactly what they are looking for, they know what to ignore and what to take an interest in. It's why 95% of the travelling public, apart from the inevitable queues, are allowed to proceed through unhindered with the minimum level of interaction. They have the knowledge base and training to do this. I accept that there always exceptions to the rules but in my experience they are few and far between.
I know that the security operatives do not.
I'm not being cruel to these folks, they are doing a horrid job and I respect that but they could do it so much better in so many cases. That they do not suggests a degree of obstinance and stupidity better suited to another less critical environment.
I would suggest that if you want to be considered safe and free from risk in 100% (your words Sir) of the time you travel on an aircraft, then;
A) Don't get onboard the aeroplane - they are awfully complicated you know.
B) Don't rely on unmotivated, unskilled and poorly paid security people doing a poor job targeting the wrong people because they were simply left to get on with it and figure it out for themselves.
C) Etc.
"When may I expect you to counter the points I made about the right educated people, with the right background and level of vetting and ongoing monitoring, with the right access to the pertinent intel, from the right crown service working in partnership with other crown services, doing the REAL job that security have no hope in a month of Sundays doing??"
I'm very happy that we have such people working for us.
As soon as you can guarantee with your life that they will be 100% accurate and successful, I'l be even happier.
But, we seem to have reached an impass, and neither has convinced the other. I'm surprised at these negative attitudes to security, but I cant sway you over to my point of view. I'm a little surprised considering that you life is more at risk from terrorism than mine.
However, before we come to a standstill, I have only one last suggestion. If you feel it's really that bad, do what any other employee has a right to so... go on strike.
Never have I read a more provocative and uninformed view of the issues at hand. I suspect that it's because you are either involved with the issue from the other side of the security gates or it's because you simply do not understand the issue at hand.
Many of those involved at the sharp end of the aviation business are risk adverse - it's the nature of the business. Check, check and double check. With this comes an eye for detail but it's an experienced eye and one that takes in any number of details. I'm sorry to say this but it's something that our friends in security do not share, they are not motivated or trained to anywhere near the standard required to offer the kind of protection you believe that they offer. And the reality is that because of the pay and terms and conditions offered to these operatives, the role attracts the uneducated, uninterested and those whose communication skills which are not up to the level of interaction that the role requires. It's a double edged sword - they end up alienating the very people that would work with them to facilitate the responsibilities we all have in the airside environment. It's not rocket science.
I honestly believe that when Police, Customs and Immigration Officers cast an eye over us in the ports, they know exactly what they are looking for, they know what to ignore and what to take an interest in. It's why 95% of the travelling public, apart from the inevitable queues, are allowed to proceed through unhindered with the minimum level of interaction. They have the knowledge base and training to do this. I accept that there always exceptions to the rules but in my experience they are few and far between.
I know that the security operatives do not.
I'm not being cruel to these folks, they are doing a horrid job and I respect that but they could do it so much better in so many cases. That they do not suggests a degree of obstinance and stupidity better suited to another less critical environment.
I would suggest that if you want to be considered safe and free from risk in 100% (your words Sir) of the time you travel on an aircraft, then;
A) Don't get onboard the aeroplane - they are awfully complicated you know.
B) Don't rely on unmotivated, unskilled and poorly paid security people doing a poor job targeting the wrong people because they were simply left to get on with it and figure it out for themselves.
C) Etc.
Last edited by qwertyplop; 16th Jul 2008 at 22:19.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rsuggit: You are more at risk because of pointless security rules and the scum that enforce them. Like with knifes, guns, fists or any other device/weapon, it is not the weapon per se that poses the threat - it's the person that has the criminal intent. Not one of the damn measures enforced by the "blind mullet" at the checkpoints seeks to identify any potential perpetrator. Instead they regard everyone as a threat. And that is plain bonkers! I can think of no other system anywhere which is so bloody pointless nor one which offers so little value for money. The system which you appear to hold is such esteem is the one that allows the bad guys to win.
Let me explain. The bad guys have to get their gadgets/components/weapons onto a airside to cause damage. How would they do it? The same way that I would if I was a perpetrator. You'll have take my word on that. With the little knowledge I have of procedures and locations, I reckon I that could I could get almost anything required to a specfic location. No problem. What you forget is that the bad guys don't have to worry about the rules. Those of us who do have to stick to the pointless charade and waste resources getting checked otherwise we lose our jobs. When you have to put up with the standard scumbag security guard patting you down for the n'th time that wek and giving you a hard time, because they can, it starts your flight off badly. We are only human and don't forget we are driving you! Stress before flight was almost certainly a major contributor to the Staines incident many years ago. And finally, the money which is wasted on airport security (approx. £20 per passenger) could be spent on actively hunting the bad guys.
I'd start shouting at your MP if I were you.
PM
Let me explain. The bad guys have to get their gadgets/components/weapons onto a airside to cause damage. How would they do it? The same way that I would if I was a perpetrator. You'll have take my word on that. With the little knowledge I have of procedures and locations, I reckon I that could I could get almost anything required to a specfic location. No problem. What you forget is that the bad guys don't have to worry about the rules. Those of us who do have to stick to the pointless charade and waste resources getting checked otherwise we lose our jobs. When you have to put up with the standard scumbag security guard patting you down for the n'th time that wek and giving you a hard time, because they can, it starts your flight off badly. We are only human and don't forget we are driving you! Stress before flight was almost certainly a major contributor to the Staines incident many years ago. And finally, the money which is wasted on airport security (approx. £20 per passenger) could be spent on actively hunting the bad guys.
I'd start shouting at your MP if I were you.
PM
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: FarFarAway
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh,yet another "stress free" day
Staff security?? Oh FFS take a hike!!! And an education whilst you're at it!Tell me what exactly is the point of the following?
Went to work yesterday, as you do, and had to go through staff "security". Everything in clear plastic bag, jacket off, shoes off, everything by "the book".
The overzealous security staff going through my lunch box, unwrapping my sandwiches.
Me (as advised by a Pprune friend): Excuse me Sir, do you mind putting on gloves when you do that?
The security staff not even looking at me: What's that love?
Me: well i believe it's a Health and Safety requierement to wear gloves when searching?
The Security (************** - that's swearing
) Staff: Well we don't have any in here love, but we have some in the office.
(the office is something like 5-10mins walk)
Me: It's ok, I'll wait. In the mean time can you get YOUR manager to explain to MY manager why am I delaying a flight?
The SS: It's ok love, you can go through this time (zipping up my crew bag)
What's it gonna be next time??
UK security staff need a few weeks of CRM and (just invented) Common Sense training. Tell me exactly how could or would i threaten a pax with my sandwiches? And as i asked before (don't know if i had a reply from likes of Paarmo and Rsuggit as they are on my ignore list), how would my Lipgloss, Perfume or Hairspray represent a threat to the pax when i have the actual REAL weapon (the a/c) on my hands???
This is getting so ridiculous
Rgds,
ATS
Went to work yesterday, as you do, and had to go through staff "security". Everything in clear plastic bag, jacket off, shoes off, everything by "the book".
The overzealous security staff going through my lunch box, unwrapping my sandwiches.
Me (as advised by a Pprune friend): Excuse me Sir, do you mind putting on gloves when you do that?
The security staff not even looking at me: What's that love?
Me: well i believe it's a Health and Safety requierement to wear gloves when searching?
The Security (************** - that's swearing
) Staff: Well we don't have any in here love, but we have some in the office.(the office is something like 5-10mins walk)
Me: It's ok, I'll wait. In the mean time can you get YOUR manager to explain to MY manager why am I delaying a flight?
The SS: It's ok love, you can go through this time (zipping up my crew bag)
What's it gonna be next time??
UK security staff need a few weeks of CRM and (just invented) Common Sense training. Tell me exactly how could or would i threaten a pax with my sandwiches? And as i asked before (don't know if i had a reply from likes of Paarmo and Rsuggit as they are on my ignore list), how would my Lipgloss, Perfume or Hairspray represent a threat to the pax when i have the actual REAL weapon (the a/c) on my hands???
This is getting so ridiculous
Rgds,
ATS
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: oxfordshire
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And if all the security idiocy we put up with as crew in the UK is so essential then why are we the only country in the world implementing it. The rest of the world can see what a nonsense it is but not the UK authorities.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Teesside
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hate to be picky but Richard Reid the "shoe bomber" was not trying to set fire to his shoe but plastic explosive secreted in the sole of his shoe.
What has not been mentioned in this post has been the increase in aircrew being arrested for being under the influence of alcohol since increased security checks have been put in place. Probably a coincidence but .......
There is also the question of smuggling by aircrew of drugs or money ( Money laundering ). The checks now in place would certainly deter me from attempting it.
What has not been mentioned in this post has been the increase in aircrew being arrested for being under the influence of alcohol since increased security checks have been put in place. Probably a coincidence but .......
There is also the question of smuggling by aircrew of drugs or money ( Money laundering ). The checks now in place would certainly deter me from attempting it.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Teesside
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flintstone
I don't think that you are in the "know" about security. You are apparently aircrew and have a different perspective.
The people in the "know" about security are the people who recommended the present security levels to the Government. Professionals in security not in flying.
The people in the "know" about security are the people who recommended the present security levels to the Government. Professionals in security not in flying.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: FarFarAway
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh Flinstone you are so right!!!
To the disapointment of Paarmo and Rsugitt ( i only know about their posts because Mr. ATS showed them to me), in my airline we are not allowed to leave the a/c nor purchase anything from any mobile crew shop otherwise we could face instant dismissal ( as stated in our contracts)
So if i have NO contact with ground employees (apart from the dispatcher), either they are airline ground agents, fuelers, you name it, how am I, a 5 years back checked aircrew being searched and abused every day when i report to duty, smuggling drugs, do money laundering, and so on?
Get real and get your facts right! If aircrew want to hijack a plane, they would do so, but confiscating their nail clippers or yoghurts won't make a difference!!
Security Staff: Get some common sense and respect for those who decided to work harder than you and wanted more from life. And before you tell me i am just a little flight attendant and i have no right to say anything, i'll have you know that A: Mr. ATS IS a pilot for a commercial airline and he has to go through all this staff security $h!t every working day. B: he has an axe behind his seat so having his water confiscated won't make any difference. C: why are you all suchheads and can't really see the truth when it's laid down to you on a silver plate?
You people make me sick. You swear, after a 2 days training, that you are going to protect and preserve. Like a policeman but unlike a policeman, you are just frustrated that you will never get far enough in life and you dare take it out on all aircrew!!
BRAVO, i have never seen or heard of so much stupidity in my entire life!
Rgds,
ATS
To the disapointment of Paarmo and Rsugitt ( i only know about their posts because Mr. ATS showed them to me), in my airline we are not allowed to leave the a/c nor purchase anything from any mobile crew shop otherwise we could face instant dismissal ( as stated in our contracts)
So if i have NO contact with ground employees (apart from the dispatcher), either they are airline ground agents, fuelers, you name it, how am I, a 5 years back checked aircrew being searched and abused every day when i report to duty, smuggling drugs, do money laundering, and so on?
Get real and get your facts right! If aircrew want to hijack a plane, they would do so, but confiscating their nail clippers or yoghurts won't make a difference!!
Security Staff: Get some common sense and respect for those who decided to work harder than you and wanted more from life. And before you tell me i am just a little flight attendant and i have no right to say anything, i'll have you know that A: Mr. ATS IS a pilot for a commercial airline and he has to go through all this staff security $h!t every working day. B: he has an axe behind his seat so having his water confiscated won't make any difference. C: why are you all such
heads and can't really see the truth when it's laid down to you on a silver plate?You people make me sick. You swear, after a 2 days training, that you are going to protect and preserve. Like a policeman but unlike a policeman, you are just frustrated that you will never get far enough in life and you dare take it out on all aircrew!!
BRAVO, i have never seen or heard of so much stupidity in my entire life!
Rgds,
ATS
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paarmo wrote
Hate to be picky but Richard Reid the "shoe bomber" was not trying to set fire to his shoe but plastic explosive secreted in the sole of his shoe.
What has not been mentioned in this post has been the increase in aircrew being arrested for being under the influence of alcohol since increased security checks have been put in place. Probably a coincidence but .......
There is also the question of smuggling by aircrew of drugs or money ( Money laundering ). The checks now in place would certainly deter me from attempting it.
What checks are those then Paarmo?
Could you reference and demonstrate both notions please? That is I would care to see the source of your information on alcohol followed by demonstrative effect of an untrained security operative employed by a private security company who has no executive powers on stopping crew trafficking contraband and money. I'd wager 99% of UK airport security operatives have no idea of what one can and can't take in and out of the UK in terms of prohibitions. The port control authorities might give them a little heads up of when to telephone them for a bit of help but as for intervention and follow up - no I don't think so.
You're approach to this is rather simplistic and somewhat transparent frankly - you can state quite reasonably that by virtue of there being rudimentary checks by security operatives there is a disruption effect on all the criminality that presumably you believe went on previously before such checks where introduced. And that these underpaid and unvalued security types are the answer to all the law enforcement problems in an airport. Please go on believing this because the naivity of this idea is rather touching. Have you discussed this with those in the airport whose real job is to do this work? Pop over to the Airport Policing Unit sometime and throw that one in. I suspect we'd hear the laughing from here.
Perhaps you are confused - the port control authorities do this and they are MOST CERTAINLY not security types employed by private companies, they did it before these impositions and they'll carry on doing after we've all gone. What utter nonsense to suggest otherwise with respect.
Please list your sources of information.
Thank you.
Hate to be picky but Richard Reid the "shoe bomber" was not trying to set fire to his shoe but plastic explosive secreted in the sole of his shoe.
What has not been mentioned in this post has been the increase in aircrew being arrested for being under the influence of alcohol since increased security checks have been put in place. Probably a coincidence but .......
There is also the question of smuggling by aircrew of drugs or money ( Money laundering ). The checks now in place would certainly deter me from attempting it.
What checks are those then Paarmo?
Could you reference and demonstrate both notions please? That is I would care to see the source of your information on alcohol followed by demonstrative effect of an untrained security operative employed by a private security company who has no executive powers on stopping crew trafficking contraband and money. I'd wager 99% of UK airport security operatives have no idea of what one can and can't take in and out of the UK in terms of prohibitions. The port control authorities might give them a little heads up of when to telephone them for a bit of help but as for intervention and follow up - no I don't think so.
You're approach to this is rather simplistic and somewhat transparent frankly - you can state quite reasonably that by virtue of there being rudimentary checks by security operatives there is a disruption effect on all the criminality that presumably you believe went on previously before such checks where introduced. And that these underpaid and unvalued security types are the answer to all the law enforcement problems in an airport. Please go on believing this because the naivity of this idea is rather touching. Have you discussed this with those in the airport whose real job is to do this work? Pop over to the Airport Policing Unit sometime and throw that one in. I suspect we'd hear the laughing from here.
Perhaps you are confused - the port control authorities do this and they are MOST CERTAINLY not security types employed by private companies, they did it before these impositions and they'll carry on doing after we've all gone. What utter nonsense to suggest otherwise with respect.
Please list your sources of information.
Thank you.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paarmo wrote
I don't think that you are in the "know" about security. You are apparently aircrew and have a different perspective.
The people in the "know" about security are the people who recommended the present security levels to the Government. Professionals in security not in flying.
Would you care to expand upon your present level of security clearance and the access to information and resources that you have that put you 'in the particular loop' the rest of us are out of.
I ask, with respect, because such things define the seriousness and level at which you play this game.
I don't think that you are in the "know" about security. You are apparently aircrew and have a different perspective.
The people in the "know" about security are the people who recommended the present security levels to the Government. Professionals in security not in flying.
Would you care to expand upon your present level of security clearance and the access to information and resources that you have that put you 'in the particular loop' the rest of us are out of.
I ask, with respect, because such things define the seriousness and level at which you play this game.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Teesside
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm lead to believe that aircrew are virtually strip searched every time they transit security.
If during this search £600,000 in cash is discovered in a carry on bag or a large bag of white powder in your pocket I think that even the dimmest of security men would recognise this as being a bit strange and report it to his supervisor. As for the people alledgedly over the alcohol limit , these people are not challenged by security staff but their suspicions are passed to the airport Police who deal with it as soon as they feel able.
Just read the above after I posted. My security clearance is sufficient for my needs as it should be for everyone. I am not saying that I was involved in the decisions just that the people who were involved were security professionals and not aircrew.
If during this search £600,000 in cash is discovered in a carry on bag or a large bag of white powder in your pocket I think that even the dimmest of security men would recognise this as being a bit strange and report it to his supervisor. As for the people alledgedly over the alcohol limit , these people are not challenged by security staff but their suspicions are passed to the airport Police who deal with it as soon as they feel able.
Just read the above after I posted. My security clearance is sufficient for my needs as it should be for everyone. I am not saying that I was involved in the decisions just that the people who were involved were security professionals and not aircrew.
Last edited by paarmo; 16th Jul 2008 at 22:26. Reason: Extra
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'You are led to believe'.
Anecdotal 'evidence' on which you base an argument? You have to do better than that I'm afraid with respect to the many intelligent and reasonable individuals here - this is rather insulting Old Chap.
But supposing you have a point - let's develop it shall we?
We all know you don't need to do that. We all know, as do the port control authorities, that if you are trafficking such an amount of cash or drugs then you simply pay off more minimum wage people who deliver the scoff to the aircraft and pop it onboard that way or any number of ways that things arrive airside without being checked properly because of more underpaid, undervalued security people on the access gates who have little idea about what goes in and out of the restricted area, they are more concerned in reading their papers, texting and generally 'hanging out' than searchng the scoff lorries going into that area. This is the point many airside workers have been making all along, it's not the airside workers who are the problem, it's the system of subjective searching that ignore the real risks. Nothing else. The present system of physical security is endemic of people who cannot see further than the end of their noses and don't know what it is they are looking for.
What sort of mug would walk contraband through a place where they knew they are going to get the half arsed third degree without exception? Your comments show a lack of generic knowledge around airfield operations and layouts and that concerns me given some of your comments. After you've visited the Airport Policing Unit and they've wiped the tears of laughter from their eyes, pop over to their colleagues in Customs, again I suspect we'll hear the laughing from here.
Security have a role at an airport - there is no doubt about it - it's just not what you think it is.
As for your security clearance - you don't even know what I'm talking about do you?
Anecdotal 'evidence' on which you base an argument? You have to do better than that I'm afraid with respect to the many intelligent and reasonable individuals here - this is rather insulting Old Chap.
But supposing you have a point - let's develop it shall we?
We all know you don't need to do that. We all know, as do the port control authorities, that if you are trafficking such an amount of cash or drugs then you simply pay off more minimum wage people who deliver the scoff to the aircraft and pop it onboard that way or any number of ways that things arrive airside without being checked properly because of more underpaid, undervalued security people on the access gates who have little idea about what goes in and out of the restricted area, they are more concerned in reading their papers, texting and generally 'hanging out' than searchng the scoff lorries going into that area. This is the point many airside workers have been making all along, it's not the airside workers who are the problem, it's the system of subjective searching that ignore the real risks. Nothing else. The present system of physical security is endemic of people who cannot see further than the end of their noses and don't know what it is they are looking for.
What sort of mug would walk contraband through a place where they knew they are going to get the half arsed third degree without exception? Your comments show a lack of generic knowledge around airfield operations and layouts and that concerns me given some of your comments. After you've visited the Airport Policing Unit and they've wiped the tears of laughter from their eyes, pop over to their colleagues in Customs, again I suspect we'll hear the laughing from here.
Security have a role at an airport - there is no doubt about it - it's just not what you think it is.
As for your security clearance - you don't even know what I'm talking about do you?
Last edited by qwertyplop; 16th Jul 2008 at 22:45.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Teesside
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was under the impression that this post was about aircrew being searched, quite rightly so I believe ,when transitting security not about the overall security at airports. Aircrew seem to think that because they are employed as flying people then they are exempt from any form of screening at security checkpoints. A ludicrous position I think that even you would agree with.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by paarmo
I don't think that you are in the "know" about security. You are apparently aircrew and have a different perspective.
The people in the "know" about security are the people who recommended the present security levels to the Government. Professionals in security not in flying.
The people in the "know" about security are the people who recommended the present security levels to the Government. Professionals in security not in flying.
You are not in the know. If you were you certainly wouldn't be blabbing about it on here let alone making a complete Horlicks of the whole thing. Something along the lines of every squaddie claiming to have been in the SAS
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stop wriggling Paarmo!!
Moving the goalposts now will not explain your point of view away with the greatest of respect to you.
Security in this context is about all the issues at an airfield not just what you pick and choose, again, an absolute misnomer on your part if you believe otherwise. If you were 'under the impression' - I hope I have gone some way towards correcting the assumptions you previously held.
In this debate - the context is everything. It's vital to understanding the issues at hand. And yes, some crew could help themselves a bit more when they pass through under the present impostions, I totally agree.
However, I regularly see security people taking an unhealthy and unwarranted interest in crews. Immigration Officers and Customs Officers simply going about their business seem to attract stupid levels of attention as well although they just seem to suck it up and smile. That said, I presume security go on holiday from time to time. Plenty of chances to get them back I guess...!!
Rubber glove please.
Moving the goalposts now will not explain your point of view away with the greatest of respect to you.
Security in this context is about all the issues at an airfield not just what you pick and choose, again, an absolute misnomer on your part if you believe otherwise. If you were 'under the impression' - I hope I have gone some way towards correcting the assumptions you previously held.
In this debate - the context is everything. It's vital to understanding the issues at hand. And yes, some crew could help themselves a bit more when they pass through under the present impostions, I totally agree.
However, I regularly see security people taking an unhealthy and unwarranted interest in crews. Immigration Officers and Customs Officers simply going about their business seem to attract stupid levels of attention as well although they just seem to suck it up and smile. That said, I presume security go on holiday from time to time. Plenty of chances to get them back I guess...!!
Rubber glove please.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Teesside
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I totally agree that airside security should be reviewed but this particular post is about aircrew resenting the attentions of security. If you are au fait with previous posts I think that we are in agreement that aircrew do not always help themselves when they try to circumvent security for the sake of doing it and to make a point.
Local agreements are the way forward and perseverence if they do not immediately live up to expectations as Jet set lady was keen to point out.
I really think that you should accept the fact that aircrew will always be subject to screening even if the liquids ban is modified or even dropped in the future.
I live near an industrial site where I need to show a pass to enter and leave, am subject to personal searches on arrival and departure and also a full search of my vehicle also on arrival and departure.This adds some 30 minutes each day to travelling time.
I can't say I have a great deal of sympathy for someone who has to take his shoes off and behave in a responsible manner.
Local agreements are the way forward and perseverence if they do not immediately live up to expectations as Jet set lady was keen to point out.
I really think that you should accept the fact that aircrew will always be subject to screening even if the liquids ban is modified or even dropped in the future.
I live near an industrial site where I need to show a pass to enter and leave, am subject to personal searches on arrival and departure and also a full search of my vehicle also on arrival and departure.This adds some 30 minutes each day to travelling time.
I can't say I have a great deal of sympathy for someone who has to take his shoes off and behave in a responsible manner.
Aircrew seem to think that because they are employed as flying people then they are exempt from any form of screening at security checkpoints.
Nobody is saying that at all. But how can confiscating my first officer's yogurt or set of dividers really protect us from "terrorism"?
Paarmo - what has smuggling vast quantites of cash got to do with aircraft safety - unless it is carried in 50p pieces in which case there might be a weight and balance problem ?
You sound like some sort of P.C. Thought Policeman who wants to control every aspect of our aircrew lives. ( ex. in my case, but I still suffer this total nonsense as a pax. )
I'm not condoning smuggling or drug running, but don't muddy the waters by confusing the two issues.
You sound like some sort of P.C. Thought Policeman who wants to control every aspect of our aircrew lives. ( ex. in my case, but I still suffer this total nonsense as a pax. )
I'm not condoning smuggling or drug running, but don't muddy the waters by confusing the two issues.