Frustrated (?) pilots and security screening
.......but then I’m willing to be a right royal pain to any jumped up SOB that believes they can get away with anything.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you will find they are supplied in the same tamper evident packaging which all other food and drink products are delivered in nowadays.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: London, Berlin, Bucharest
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
working in club security, if ever you get a pat down that you think was a bit too much, report it to management. if they dont look at it, go to to police. simple as that.
against human rights is bull sh!t as the CCVT is there to protect the customers and satff, not just staff.
if anyone is in that sort of situation, take the persons details down from their badge if they dont give it to you themselves, THEN call the police. if they see you calling to cops, they suddnly get called somewhere else and you wont see them again. if they have their badge hidden then inform the police of this as well so the security staff can face a 5K fine ontop of charges. the employer will also face big bills which means more costly for the airport.
as ive written in previous posts, the security staff that work in airports are a bunch of muppets. take them to to cleaners as they clean you out when you go through security. whenever i go through heathrow i make it a point to see they do their job right and realy give them a piece of my mind if not. when they start to stand up forthemselves, i let them know exactly what they can do and what they cant. alwase shuts them up.
oh it also works with parking attandents, another evil to get rid off.
rant over.
against human rights is bull sh!t as the CCVT is there to protect the customers and satff, not just staff.
if anyone is in that sort of situation, take the persons details down from their badge if they dont give it to you themselves, THEN call the police. if they see you calling to cops, they suddnly get called somewhere else and you wont see them again. if they have their badge hidden then inform the police of this as well so the security staff can face a 5K fine ontop of charges. the employer will also face big bills which means more costly for the airport.
as ive written in previous posts, the security staff that work in airports are a bunch of muppets. take them to to cleaners as they clean you out when you go through security. whenever i go through heathrow i make it a point to see they do their job right and realy give them a piece of my mind if not. when they start to stand up forthemselves, i let them know exactly what they can do and what they cant. alwase shuts them up.
oh it also works with parking attandents, another evil to get rid off.
rant over.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: not a million miles from old BKK
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
max_cont
IMO the police should have been called, but then I’m willing to be a right royal pain to any jumped up SOB that believes they can get away with anything.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: oxfordshire
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again...
From the Sexual Offences Act 2003
>>>3 Sexual assault
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if-
(a) he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b) the touching is sexual,
(c) B does not consent to the touching, and
(d) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable-
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years. <<<
As far as I am concerned if I give a permission to a security person to physically search me I am not reasonably expecting that search to include a search of my genitals. If that person is doing it delibrately and not accidently then it must be sexually motivated. If it happens to me I am calling the police. It may be difficult to prove and may go nowhere but that is not my problem. My duty is to report the crime.
From the Sexual Offences Act 2003
>>>3 Sexual assault
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if-
(a) he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b) the touching is sexual,
(c) B does not consent to the touching, and
(d) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable-
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years. <<<
As far as I am concerned if I give a permission to a security person to physically search me I am not reasonably expecting that search to include a search of my genitals. If that person is doing it delibrately and not accidently then it must be sexually motivated. If it happens to me I am calling the police. It may be difficult to prove and may go nowhere but that is not my problem. My duty is to report the crime.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Teesside
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max cont..I am struggling to understand why a "Arrods" bear should be in the seizure bin as a result of the current regulations. Even so if this did happen then the people to contact are the airport Police.Similarly with the complaint of indecent assault. It is symptomatic of our society nowadays that no one seems to want to stand up for what is right.If you feel that a crime has been committed then it is your duty as a citizen to report it.We are filled to the limit with citizens rights and the so called Human Rights Act but people fail to mention the duties of citizens of this Country to assist in upholding the law.As an aside the excuse for not viewing CCTV footage under the Human Rights Act is totally and inexcuseably wrong.Again report the matter to the airport Police and let them prosecute the offenders if the evidence is there. No one is above the law.
Speedbird If you can't express your views without personal attacks then I feel you should withdraw from the fray. The further thread you mentioned is not about aircrew being searched under the existing regulations but about the regulations themselves and even then it appears to be based on U.S. experiences.
Nashers..bit of a sweeping statement that everyone who works in airport security is a muppet. I am sure that there are some very conscientious and capable people as there are in any other field of work. The problem as always is that no one sees these as they are usually unobtrusive and efficient.
Speedbird If you can't express your views without personal attacks then I feel you should withdraw from the fray. The further thread you mentioned is not about aircrew being searched under the existing regulations but about the regulations themselves and even then it appears to be based on U.S. experiences.
Nashers..bit of a sweeping statement that everyone who works in airport security is a muppet. I am sure that there are some very conscientious and capable people as there are in any other field of work. The problem as always is that no one sees these as they are usually unobtrusive and efficient.
Last edited by paarmo; 18th Oct 2008 at 22:46. Reason: P.S.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Teesside
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question....was the liquid you were taking airside above the regulation limit? Answer I believe is yes.
The tamper evident packaging is not just the single bottle but the whole shrink wrapped consignment which is recieved from the warehouse.
If you go to your local cash and carry and buy anything in bulk you will see what the whole package looks like.
I have never said that the regulations on accessing airside as an individual were defensible just that they are in place and as such ALL persons accessing airside should be treated as equals.
The problems arise when some people feel that they are too important or indispensible to follow simple and well advertised rules because they feel that they themselves would never engage in terrorist acts.
It's a bit like self certification of wages to get a huge mortgage and look what has happened.
The tamper evident packaging is not just the single bottle but the whole shrink wrapped consignment which is recieved from the warehouse.
If you go to your local cash and carry and buy anything in bulk you will see what the whole package looks like.
I have never said that the regulations on accessing airside as an individual were defensible just that they are in place and as such ALL persons accessing airside should be treated as equals.
The problems arise when some people feel that they are too important or indispensible to follow simple and well advertised rules because they feel that they themselves would never engage in terrorist acts.
It's a bit like self certification of wages to get a huge mortgage and look what has happened.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Midlands, England
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gatwick allowed "bombs" through security
Interesting article in todays Times newspaper;
Replica bombs beat Gatwick security checks - Times Online
From The Sunday Times
October 19, 2008
Replica bombs beat Gatwick security checks
Steven Swinford
div#related-article-links p a, div#related-article-links p a:visited {color:#06c;}Replica bombs were smuggled past security staff in hand luggage during a safety inspection at Britain’s second busiest airport.
Staff at Gatwick failed to identify artificial explosives carried by undercover transport inspectors from Brussels even though one device was allegedly identified as suspicious by X-ray scanners.
The device was apparently handed back to the purported terrorist because the person carrying out the screening did not realise what had been found, according to an airport source.
The shortcomings high-lighted by the European commission’s inspection this month will be tested again this week in a follow-up audit.
Sources at Gatwick claim the work of security staff is being hampered by the need to keep queues to a minimum.
Under rules introduced in March, BAA, the owner of Gatwick, can be fined up to £17m a year if passengers are consistently forced to queue for more than five minutes for security checks.
An airport source said: “Staff are under massive pressure to get people through queues and can easily miss things.
“In one case [during the recent inspection], a replica bomb was flagged up on screen, the bag searched and then handed back to the inspector because they didn’t know what it was. There is so much focus on looking for liquids that they seem to be forgetting the basics.”
The source said screening staff were also being distracted by virtual tests, known as threat image projection, which involve a computer superimposing an image of a banned item on the screen as baggage goes through. “They are spending so much time looking for these virtual items that they are not focusing on those in the real world.”
The incident is not the first time security at Britain’s airports has been found wanting. In 2000, inspectors managed to get through security at Manchester and Stansted airports with fake guns and bombs.
Experts claim that explosives can often be difficult to detect. “Because explosives are organic they are difficult to distinguish during the x-ray,” said Norman Shanks, a former head of security at BAA.
“Staff have to look instead for smaller parts, such as the timer, wire and detonator which can be very difficult to spot. We really need to be looking at a new generation of X-rays to help check for explosive devices.”
A BAA spokesman confirmed the inspection had taken place, but refused to comment on whether it had failed to detect replica bombs. “We regularly work with European Union and British government inspectors to rigorously test security processes and staff to continuously improve our procedures,” he said.
The European commission refused to discuss the findings of the inspection.
Replica bombs beat Gatwick security checks - Times Online
From The Sunday Times
October 19, 2008
Replica bombs beat Gatwick security checks
Steven Swinford
div#related-article-links p a, div#related-article-links p a:visited {color:#06c;}Replica bombs were smuggled past security staff in hand luggage during a safety inspection at Britain’s second busiest airport.
Staff at Gatwick failed to identify artificial explosives carried by undercover transport inspectors from Brussels even though one device was allegedly identified as suspicious by X-ray scanners.
The device was apparently handed back to the purported terrorist because the person carrying out the screening did not realise what had been found, according to an airport source.
The shortcomings high-lighted by the European commission’s inspection this month will be tested again this week in a follow-up audit.
Sources at Gatwick claim the work of security staff is being hampered by the need to keep queues to a minimum.
Under rules introduced in March, BAA, the owner of Gatwick, can be fined up to £17m a year if passengers are consistently forced to queue for more than five minutes for security checks.
An airport source said: “Staff are under massive pressure to get people through queues and can easily miss things.
“In one case [during the recent inspection], a replica bomb was flagged up on screen, the bag searched and then handed back to the inspector because they didn’t know what it was. There is so much focus on looking for liquids that they seem to be forgetting the basics.”
The source said screening staff were also being distracted by virtual tests, known as threat image projection, which involve a computer superimposing an image of a banned item on the screen as baggage goes through. “They are spending so much time looking for these virtual items that they are not focusing on those in the real world.”
The incident is not the first time security at Britain’s airports has been found wanting. In 2000, inspectors managed to get through security at Manchester and Stansted airports with fake guns and bombs.
Experts claim that explosives can often be difficult to detect. “Because explosives are organic they are difficult to distinguish during the x-ray,” said Norman Shanks, a former head of security at BAA.
“Staff have to look instead for smaller parts, such as the timer, wire and detonator which can be very difficult to spot. We really need to be looking at a new generation of X-rays to help check for explosive devices.”
A BAA spokesman confirmed the inspection had taken place, but refused to comment on whether it had failed to detect replica bombs. “We regularly work with European Union and British government inspectors to rigorously test security processes and staff to continuously improve our procedures,” he said.
The European commission refused to discuss the findings of the inspection.
Question: Is it correct that security-staff must ask the one to be searched (tap down) before even touching this person? If yes, where can I find that rule, I would like to print it and show it to them the next time they give me ****!
Paarmo said ..........
and why not, they started it !!
My comments on the TSA would also be 'moderated' out, and that would be a Corporate attack not a Personal one.
I'm happy to withdraw, 'there's none so blind as those who don't want to see '
Wasting my time.
.................and even then it appears to be based on U.S. experiences.
My comments on the TSA would also be 'moderated' out, and that would be a Corporate attack not a Personal one.
I'm happy to withdraw, 'there's none so blind as those who don't want to see '
Wasting my time.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: The Pointy End
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paarmo I don’t know why the bear was in the bin either…perhaps it was a lost & found item and was in there because they couldn’t leave it on the x-ray machine belt. The bin was just handy. What I do know is that it did happen because I asked my other half about the incident before posting the details.
The assault also took place and she was very upset about it. The “Dyke” (her words) made her feel dirty and powerless. She was made to hold her ID above her head with her arms and legs spread eagled while this creature got her jollies by groping her. The rest of the gnomes watched, grinning like idiots.
A manager from her (my other half) employer was called and despite having three witnesses the BAA was difficult, refused to give the details of the offender and obstructed the investigation. As I stated, I would have called the police and made a formal complaint of assault. I didn’t believe the bit about human rights and would have insisted that this went all the way. The police are obliged to investigate allegations of this type. However, it didn’t happen to me and was not my decision
The assault also took place and she was very upset about it. The “Dyke” (her words) made her feel dirty and powerless. She was made to hold her ID above her head with her arms and legs spread eagled while this creature got her jollies by groping her. The rest of the gnomes watched, grinning like idiots.
A manager from her (my other half) employer was called and despite having three witnesses the BAA was difficult, refused to give the details of the offender and obstructed the investigation. As I stated, I would have called the police and made a formal complaint of assault. I didn’t believe the bit about human rights and would have insisted that this went all the way. The police are obliged to investigate allegations of this type. However, it didn’t happen to me and was not my decision
How reassuring to see Security at Gatwick is working well.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Both Emispheres
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, when failures are found in the "security system", that is welcomed by all parts in the system itself, because it creates another reason for pouring more money in the system itself (that clearly is flawed and cannot be fixed).
As the article mentions, they are already looking for next generation scanners, that are certainly more expensive, require re-training, so self-perpetuating the system.
I quote below a post that I summarize very well what is the real state of things, and I will do the same everytime someone pops up defending this crazyness that we're subject to due to inept politicians and greedy administrators.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/2...ml#post4465627
As the article mentions, they are already looking for next generation scanners, that are certainly more expensive, require re-training, so self-perpetuating the system.
I quote below a post that I summarize very well what is the real state of things, and I will do the same everytime someone pops up defending this crazyness that we're subject to due to inept politicians and greedy administrators.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/2...ml#post4465627
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: A332FDECK
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try Manchester airport....PIC or a nominated crew (i.e First Officer) to supervise the loading of ALL crew checked-in baggages onto the bulk cargo after the security checks...now that's a bit TOO MUCH I'd say....
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: oxfordshire
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question: Is it correct that security-staff must ask the one to be searched (tap down) before even touching this person? If yes, where can I find that rule, I would like to print it and show it to them the next time they give me ****!
Hi,
sorry for my late answer. Ok, as they are not police, they have the same rights/restrictions as anyone else. But still, is there a document somewhere having it in black and white that it has to be in consent? I don't mind "being searched", I just want them to ask me first, this is our damn right!
sorry for my late answer. Ok, as they are not police, they have the same rights/restrictions as anyone else. But still, is there a document somewhere having it in black and white that it has to be in consent? I don't mind "being searched", I just want them to ask me first, this is our damn right!