Frustrated (?) pilots and security screening
As far as cost is concerned - are you trying to put a price on the security of the country??
In much the same way as a price is put on health care or road safety.
The price of anti-terrorism security has unfortunately become grossly disproportinate to the risk and is applied in a manner which is inconsistent and often downright illogical.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Age: 81
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Security
From todays Telegraph. Finally someone is thinking, I hope.
Terrorist threat to airports over lax staff security
Airports are at increasing risk from an "internal terror attack" because of lax security arrangements, according to an official report
It is feared that hundreds of foreigners are being allowed to work in high security parts of Britain's airports without passing proper criminal record checks.
Despite warnings that terrorists have tried to place sleepers in jobs "airside" in terminals, no attempt has been made to check whether foreign workers have committed any offences abroad.
A Government-commissioned report today urged for foreign criminal record checks to be made compulsory for airport workers to combat the threat to security. But it called only for new staff to be checked and not those already in post.
The paper, written by former civil servant Stephen Boys Smith, warned that the greatest threat of terrorism in future may be from "internal attack" and added that the "threat is varied and unpredictable." It said that "long term systemic changes" are needed to combat the threat from within.
There are an estimated 200,000 staff in the "airside'' parts of airports employed in shops, cafes or as cleaners in the departure lounge. Others may be employed as baggage handlers, security guards or driving buses between aircraft and the terminal.
The vetting process - using a criminal records check (CRC) - assesses workers only for crimes committed in Britain. Foreign workers - arriving from inside or outside the European Union - are not checked in their country of origin.
This means that someone with a conviction for firearms or explosives offences committed abroad could, for example, take a job loading bags on to aircraft at Heathrow, Gatwick or any other airport, provided they had committed no crimes here.
The official report, published today, said: "The Department for Transport, in consultation with the industry, should introduce a requirement to obtain foreign CRCs or the nearest equivalent information in cases where CRCs are compulsory to the UK."
Terrorist threat to airports over lax staff security
Airports are at increasing risk from an "internal terror attack" because of lax security arrangements, according to an official report
It is feared that hundreds of foreigners are being allowed to work in high security parts of Britain's airports without passing proper criminal record checks.
Despite warnings that terrorists have tried to place sleepers in jobs "airside" in terminals, no attempt has been made to check whether foreign workers have committed any offences abroad.
A Government-commissioned report today urged for foreign criminal record checks to be made compulsory for airport workers to combat the threat to security. But it called only for new staff to be checked and not those already in post.
The paper, written by former civil servant Stephen Boys Smith, warned that the greatest threat of terrorism in future may be from "internal attack" and added that the "threat is varied and unpredictable." It said that "long term systemic changes" are needed to combat the threat from within.
There are an estimated 200,000 staff in the "airside'' parts of airports employed in shops, cafes or as cleaners in the departure lounge. Others may be employed as baggage handlers, security guards or driving buses between aircraft and the terminal.
The vetting process - using a criminal records check (CRC) - assesses workers only for crimes committed in Britain. Foreign workers - arriving from inside or outside the European Union - are not checked in their country of origin.
This means that someone with a conviction for firearms or explosives offences committed abroad could, for example, take a job loading bags on to aircraft at Heathrow, Gatwick or any other airport, provided they had committed no crimes here.
The official report, published today, said: "The Department for Transport, in consultation with the industry, should introduce a requirement to obtain foreign CRCs or the nearest equivalent information in cases where CRCs are compulsory to the UK."
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paying for security plastic bags...
I wonder if this is now the case in many places? I recently operated out of MME / Teeside and one of my colleagues asked for a new plastic bag for their liquids at the xray machine. They were told that they would have to go back and buy one from a vending machine however their jacket had already gone through the machine so after some confusion they were reunited with jacket and forced to buy a plastic bag for 50p.
This caused both delay and disbelief that flight crew have to put up with this. The topic of conversation on the way out to the aircraft was quite animated indeed. I don't know how the passengers put up with this either. Needless to say the crew member will be claiming it back from the company but I post this as a warning to other flight crew to go prepared with spare bags procured from 'free' airports to save hassle at MME.
This caused both delay and disbelief that flight crew have to put up with this. The topic of conversation on the way out to the aircraft was quite animated indeed. I don't know how the passengers put up with this either. Needless to say the crew member will be claiming it back from the company but I post this as a warning to other flight crew to go prepared with spare bags procured from 'free' airports to save hassle at MME.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: cork
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same at Liverpool. They are still free in Cork, Dublin and Shannon
Of course now that its turned into a revenue stream there will be no desire to relax restrictions should the situation warrant such a move.
Of course now that its turned into a revenue stream there will be no desire to relax restrictions should the situation warrant such a move.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Anywhere I lay my hat or is that flightbag
Age: 65
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it about Security? Is it B******s (allegedly). Notwithstanding that there is a threat of some degree from some people;
Why are Security companies paid a fortune but Security staff not trained and paid badly?...profit not security.
Why are banned Liquids, knives, scissors, cigarette lighters etc. for sale Airside at extortionate prices?...profit, you need to re-buy your supplies etc.
Why are expensive xray machines/metal detectors used on pax/crew whilst stockists/suppliers of the shops can take goods in to sell airside unhindered?...Profit and image. The public see one but not the other and there is big big money in these machines.
Why are airport staff not properly vetted and trained?...Profit, cheap labour
Why do you have to check in so early?....Profit, it increases 'dwell time' for shopping as is the term used by these companies.
This is only about profit. If someone were to look up the food chain you will probably find that the rule makers have a 'vested interest' in the companies involved. Ministers, Lobbyists and other Government personnel have directorships and promises of the like from major corporations. If that were to stop the situation would be different. They would be chosen on merit not on who they can make the most profit for.
climb the pyramid for the answer if anyone dares
Why are Security companies paid a fortune but Security staff not trained and paid badly?...profit not security.
Why are banned Liquids, knives, scissors, cigarette lighters etc. for sale Airside at extortionate prices?...profit, you need to re-buy your supplies etc.
Why are expensive xray machines/metal detectors used on pax/crew whilst stockists/suppliers of the shops can take goods in to sell airside unhindered?...Profit and image. The public see one but not the other and there is big big money in these machines.
Why are airport staff not properly vetted and trained?...Profit, cheap labour
Why do you have to check in so early?....Profit, it increases 'dwell time' for shopping as is the term used by these companies.
This is only about profit. If someone were to look up the food chain you will probably find that the rule makers have a 'vested interest' in the companies involved. Ministers, Lobbyists and other Government personnel have directorships and promises of the like from major corporations. If that were to stop the situation would be different. They would be chosen on merit not on who they can make the most profit for.
climb the pyramid for the answer if anyone dares
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Catalunya
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keep it clubby and professional if you wish; and how do you know that I am not professional, in the same way that I do not know if others are.
Passengers can be equally as 'professional' as pilots, indeed a lot of passengers could be pilots.
You cannot possibly restrict a website to a particular group. How on earth would you sanction it?
Remark addressed to 'Flintstone'...
Passengers can be equally as 'professional' as pilots, indeed a lot of passengers could be pilots.
You cannot possibly restrict a website to a particular group. How on earth would you sanction it?
Remark addressed to 'Flintstone'...
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: all over the place
Age: 63
Posts: 514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
missing the point a bit aren't you? As a pilot you are security checked and vetted and checked to a ridiculous degree, even more so if you have an American license. What are we going to do with a toothpaste tube or a pot of yogurt? WE have control of the aeroplane for 
s cake
Passengers are strangers and have had no vetting prior to the flight and could have ulterior motives however, removing objects that can be repurchased airside is just ludicrous.
s cakePassengers are strangers and have had no vetting prior to the flight and could have ulterior motives however, removing objects that can be repurchased airside is just ludicrous.
sussex2
It's not about being professional or even us being "clubby". We are required, as part of our job description to take control and Command of the aircraft - it happens on every flight, so screening us for weapons or devices that would allow us to take control of said aircraft is pretty darn pointless...you, on the other hand sit on the comfy side of the flight deck door, you are not allowed to attempt to take control or Command, so no matter how professional you are you rightly will continue to be screened.
Sorry if that offends, but there is a difference, hence this thread.
Sorry if that offends, but there is a difference, hence this thread.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think Sussex2 is referring to the idea of excluding non-aviation professionals from the site (my comment above).
I made no comment whatsoever on your professional status.
I didn't say you could restrict access easily. In fact I have never claimed to have 'the answer'. Anyone who has been on PPRuNe for any length of time will know that the subject crops up with monotonous regularity and until recently I've thought it a daft idea but as I wrote up there some of the idiotic posts appearing lately are leading me to see the pro-pro's point of view.
Sorry if this offends you but I think you'll find the majority feel the same. Not that such a scheme would ever come about.
Originally Posted by Sussex2
Keep it clubby and professional if you wish; and how do you know that I am not professional, in the same way that I do not know if others are.
Originally Posted by Sussex2
You cannot possibly restrict a website to a particular group. How on earth would you sanction it?
Remark addressed to 'Flintstone'...
Remark addressed to 'Flintstone'...
Sorry if this offends you but I think you'll find the majority feel the same. Not that such a scheme would ever come about.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Both Emispheres
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Revised regulament
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...01:0206:EN:PDF
Not many apparent changes. Now since they don't want the shop owners to loose any business, the "checkable bag" has been introduced to let pax buy booze airside in an airport and keep traveling with it within 36 hours.
You should be able to fight for you right to embark a nail clipper or file now.
I Totally agree with Art deco above.
Not many apparent changes. Now since they don't want the shop owners to loose any business, the "checkable bag" has been introduced to let pax buy booze airside in an airport and keep traveling with it within 36 hours.
You should be able to fight for you right to embark a nail clipper or file now.
I Totally agree with Art deco above.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Catalunya
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My original point was more to show that if you start to make exceptions, then where do you go from there.
Most members of the travelling public may believe that the security they experience at an airport is the be all and end all of the matter. Many will not be aware of the vetting processes.
Some things you just have to grin and bear.
ps I am one of those lucky individuals who has sat on both sides of the armoured door.
Most members of the travelling public may believe that the security they experience at an airport is the be all and end all of the matter. Many will not be aware of the vetting processes.
Some things you just have to grin and bear.
ps I am one of those lucky individuals who has sat on both sides of the armoured door.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UAE/AUS
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I work at an airport in an arab country where every day we pass through a separate gate to get airside to our hangar. Every body from Police, customs and immigration to hangar staff, engineers and Pilots pass through this gate. To date I have never seen an arab searched or be made to put his belongings through the x ray machine let alone even show his pass. All non arabs must do so. That is the state of affairs here, Im sure they couldn't sneak anything through under their big white dresses? But feel safe when Passing through the Middle east knowing that at least al the western ex pat air crew are not getting through with anything nasty. I don't mind putting my Bags through the ex ray and emptying my pockets so I don't beep and showing my ID, I just wish everybody had to do the same, Nothing worse than watching a whole lot of people just cruise through beeping away and not even showing ID to what's probably one or the Busiest airports in the world.
sussex2
Thanks for the clarfication. Having said that, exceptions are already made, police already carry firearms airside, sharp items are available airside...and lo we are back to the fire axe on the flight deck argument and so I suspect this thread is like the Hamster's wheel, it'll go round forever.
Personally I feel of lot of the Screening is either window dressing and/or politicians covering their six O'Clocks and nothing is going to change. I can grudgingly live with that fact provided I'm treated with some degree of respect by the screeners, and to be fair most of the security personnel who I have had dealings with both on and off duty have been efficient and pleasant. Unfortunately there is the very small percentage of Security Personnel who seem to think their training and their function gives them the right to treat crew like ****. Its these "bottom fondling failed traffic wardens", who can have your ID and hence your job that we need rid of...but how?
Personally I feel of lot of the Screening is either window dressing and/or politicians covering their six O'Clocks and nothing is going to change. I can grudgingly live with that fact provided I'm treated with some degree of respect by the screeners, and to be fair most of the security personnel who I have had dealings with both on and off duty have been efficient and pleasant. Unfortunately there is the very small percentage of Security Personnel who seem to think their training and their function gives them the right to treat crew like ****. Its these "bottom fondling failed traffic wardens", who can have your ID and hence your job that we need rid of...but how?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Herts
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My original point was more to show that if you start to make exceptions, then where do you go from there.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada and UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comments I read and hear frequently:
- why do I need a weapon when I have the aeroplane? I could just push forward and game over.
- this is just political correctness ("gone mad")
- we are above screening ("period")
I want to be screened and here's why.
If pilots are the one group that can bypass security screening, the bad guys will know this and we will become the way in.
It's fairly straightforward: you get a phone call on your way to work, telling you that your family is being held and will come to serious harm very soon unless you comply.
They don't tell you to crash your own aircraft. Instead, they want you to pick up a package, deliver it airside, and go about your business.
If we're searched like passengers, this loophole is closed and the problem never arises.
This tactic is not new.
It sometimes seems petty, yes - but on the balance, I'll take the search.
Smudge
- why do I need a weapon when I have the aeroplane? I could just push forward and game over.
- this is just political correctness ("gone mad")
- we are above screening ("period")
I want to be screened and here's why.
If pilots are the one group that can bypass security screening, the bad guys will know this and we will become the way in.
It's fairly straightforward: you get a phone call on your way to work, telling you that your family is being held and will come to serious harm very soon unless you comply.
They don't tell you to crash your own aircraft. Instead, they want you to pick up a package, deliver it airside, and go about your business.
If we're searched like passengers, this loophole is closed and the problem never arises.
This tactic is not new.
It sometimes seems petty, yes - but on the balance, I'll take the search.
Smudge
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,439
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comments I read and hear frequently:
- why do I need a weapon when I have the aeroplane? I could just push forward and game over.
- this is just political correctness ("gone mad")
- we are above screening ("period")
- why do I need a weapon when I have the aeroplane? I could just push forward and game over.
- this is just political correctness ("gone mad")
- we are above screening ("period")
Yeah, yeah.
There are ARMED pilots, at least in the US.
I donīt need a weapon as I have the crashaxe up front.
But my nailscissors are taken away.
And every freakin airport has a different set of rules.
My opinion: crew security being at the same level than pax is just plain ridiculous. I feel above that. Cause I donīt need a weapon.
How hard is it to grasp that concept? Is that rocketscience? Why should I be denied tobring my own mineralwater. I like to have the same restriction put on members of parliament - that would be gone quicker as a lightning. It is easy to put restrictions on others.
They have gone mad. PERIOD.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada and UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE -
Unfair to say RTFQ.
Although in principle I agree with you on toothpaste and deoderant, having flown an 11 hour sector last night (although it was 4 crew and come to think of it, we didn't smell all that bad... or maybe it's just habituation).
Also, while I have the luxury of putting my various sprays and liquids (!) in the hold, I know that on shorthaul things aren't the same. Perhaps Old Spice needs to put out "pilot sized" aerosols.
However, as for "pilots are not asking to be excluded...", have a look at the first page of this thread. Fair enough, the posts are a year old, but I still hear this sort of thing on occasion.
There are those who think we should be above security checks because we have the aeroplane in our hands. I don't agree and my post says why I don't agree. If the IRA can do it, so can Al Qaeda.
Smudge (search me!)
Unfair to say RTFQ.
Although in principle I agree with you on toothpaste and deoderant, having flown an 11 hour sector last night (although it was 4 crew and come to think of it, we didn't smell all that bad... or maybe it's just habituation).
Also, while I have the luxury of putting my various sprays and liquids (!) in the hold, I know that on shorthaul things aren't the same. Perhaps Old Spice needs to put out "pilot sized" aerosols.
However, as for "pilots are not asking to be excluded...", have a look at the first page of this thread. Fair enough, the posts are a year old, but I still hear this sort of thing on occasion.
There are those who think we should be above security checks because we have the aeroplane in our hands. I don't agree and my post says why I don't agree. If the IRA can do it, so can Al Qaeda.
Smudge (search me!)