Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

CHIRP - More useless CAA comment regarding crew security.

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

CHIRP - More useless CAA comment regarding crew security.

Old 5th Aug 2008, 12:01
  #41 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Planet Earth, mostly
Posts: 467
Received 6 Likes on 3 Posts
What I can't understand is why the CAA repeatedly pretends that this problem with UK security is not a flight safety issue
According to the CAA its because of "The reluctance of individuals to declare formally that their ability to operate has been impaired as a result of a security experience"

At least thats how I read CHIRP 87.
etrang is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2008, 12:29
  #42 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: A different hotel to the one crewing told me...
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Never mind, when we've all gone through the seamless process of getting our National ID cards, all our problems will be solved, honestly...........
oapilot is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2008, 13:35
  #43 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A & C

Well said, and all those on here that think we can always manage our stress levels, take note.

If anyone thinks it is fine to have cabin crew etc in tears before a flight is fine then shame on you.

I dearly hope these security issues do not lead to an accident of the magnitude of the Trident crash, but that is why CHIRP and other programs were set up to monitor and control these type of incidents. It is because the human stress response mechanism is rather complex and despite the individual believing that he/she is in control only to find out when a further incident occured that he/she was not. A recent incident where a pilot passed out for a few seconds after a series of stress making incidents, proves that as does the crash refered to above.

Let us not forget the lessons that we learned years ago.
IcePack is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2008, 17:11
  #44 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by etrang
According to the CAA its because of "The reluctance of individuals to declare formally that their ability to operate has been impaired as a result of a security experience"
By "formally" they presumably mean on-the-record with names attached and published, as opposed to through a third party who maintains confidentiality.

One would have thought that such reluctance to go on the record about the security setup woud in itself indicate a problem (ie. what would they be afraid of - harrassment from security?, ok, so why are flight crew afraid of harrassment from security...).
infrequentflyer789 is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2008, 18:21
  #45 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

I refer you to the part of my post about the airport security management's ability to take away an airside pass without giving any reason.

I expect you could challenge that decision in court but would you still have a job by the time you won the case? (or more likely the security section submitted on the steps of the court).

Unlike the Police airport security make up the rules, judge the way they are enforced and have made sure that there is no robust system to deal with complaints.

The fact of the matter is that it is an industry riding the crest of a wave, large amounts of money are changing hands to provide a service that is carried out by the lowest paid in society, there is little wonder that they envy the other airport workers and sometimes act out of malice and spite.

It s hardly any wonder that the security management are ramping up the "security paranoia" and at the same time keeing a very low profile when it comes to the way they treat other airline staff.
A and C is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2008, 18:50
  #46 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Warrington
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks for the interesting points of view.. I can only repeat that the majority of us do not treat the air crews as the enemy within...we seem to agree that air crews (and indeed ground staff) should have some relaxation of the rules applied after 2 years of this liquids, gels, 100ml maximum size container issue...As regards the "red bull" incident, may I just repeat that the camera is always there to be played back to support any case that may be instigated regarding theft.
It is obvious to us (and my own section do actually ask the pilots and aircrews) that different rules appear to apply to each UK airport.. as was mentioned, this can only be caused by the different managements at each location applying their own "little bit extra" on top of DFT rulings.
To ground staff who turn up at a particular airport each day for work, there would be every likelihood that they may not know that different security rules apply at each different airport. Aircrews obviously get around and to that end they will obviously feel more aggrieved that they are made to comply to one set of rules at LGW, another at LHR, MAN and so on.
I do have some knowledge of the airline industry as my son is now a RAF GR9 Harrier pilot just completing his 2nd Afghan tour.... to that end I have been "dragged" around airports and aircraft since he was in junior school so he could view the aircraft, etc... the pilots amongst you were probably exactly the same from a young age. Thank you for your time, perhaps one day sanity will again prevail as regards security measures and just as importantly, the attitudes between staff.
DaveyG is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2008, 19:13
  #47 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As a matter of interest, your station managers should have an up to date copy of what is allowed and what is not through the search area as dictated by DFT. You are allowed to view this.
If they do not have one then they should approach the Airport Security Manager and ask for one and to be put on the list for updates....
Hope that helps a little. Oh and yes, the list is the same for all airports.
call100 is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2008, 20:41
  #48 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In a nice house
Posts: 981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I agree with much of what has been said so far. Its the way the rules differ everywhere you go that is the main annoying point.

Here is a positive and constructive suggestion.

The DfT (or whoever is responsible for airport security these days) should draw up a nice A4 booklet which lists the specific requirements for security checks. As in, what you can take, what you can't. What bags you can use, what you can't. Whether you should have to take your shoes and belt off every time. Or not. This document should be distributed to all CAA professional licence holders and cabin crew (or airport ID holders) and also to every UK airport authority, where it should be available at every security point as the National Airport Security Guidelines for Crew Security Checks. This way, everyone knows the rules, they are used in the same way at every UK airport and anyone (security or crew) trying to get round the rules can see what the rules are in black and white.

I agree that it is stressful and time consuming to go through security these days, particularly if away for a few days and taking hand luggage through security with you. It seems that if you have your little plastic bag correct then your suitcase won't get searched, so you put whatever else you like in there Of course, that would be completely against all security requirements and I would never flout the rules in that way.

Also, for pilots, come on guys, there is a time in every flight where there is only one pilot on the flight deck, we all know it ain't difficult to fly the thing into the ground if you really wanted to - you wouldn't need the help of an extra 50ml of toothpaste.....

The most ridiculous thing of this whole scenario is that down route you don't get anything like the same check. So you arrive, leave the aircraft, pop into the terminal, buy whatever you like, return to your aircraft with oooh, maybe 200ml of toothpaste (whatever next!!!). And no one knows or cares.

In Greece for example, it is possible to go through security with barely a glance, carrying whatever you like (and yes, this is wrong too). This does make crew a bit weary when it comes to dealing with UK security.
Airbus Girl is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2008, 23:39
  #49 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 3433N 06912E
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think Perhaps the Officer in question should have arrested the Security guard on theft charges. It seems quite obvious he(or she) had spotted the liquid and decided it would be worthwhile to hang on to. After all what other reason could they have for confiscating it???
I actually had a mini-mag light, of all things, removed from my flight case by security on the grounds that it could be used as a potential weapon, or go to the desk and send it through as checked luggage.

in the airside outlets, they were available for purchase!
Bruce Wayne is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2008, 01:02
  #50 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: yyz
Posts: 97
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Cancel the flight due to lack of safety equipment quote the applicable air navigation order
rigpiggy is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2008, 11:43
  #51 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There's NO security!

There's no security, only a perception that there is one!
The more staff, pilots and workers THEY pi$$ off, the more it SEEMS there is security being dished out.
The security "guards" can't see in a person's head, that's where terrorism is!
Come on ICTS, we've all seen the TV programme, you are a disgusting/bad lot!
Forget it.

moist is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2008, 13:30
  #52 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Work
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
CHIRP - An Alternative Suggestion

I believe that Chirp started with the best of intentions but now it it is suffering a slow death as confidence erodes with each issue and susequent comical resolutions to the problems posed.

C - Completely
H - Hopeless
I - In
R - Resolving
P - Problems
IJustPhixem is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2008, 14:41
  #53 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Hardly a constructive contribution to the debate to slag off the one part of the avitation establishment that is trying to do something about this problem.

Please come back when you have a better idea. Have you done anything constructive about this like Write to your MP or get the union working for you?
A and C is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2008, 01:35
  #54 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
DaveyG....you said may I please justify what we do with the simple words..."We operate in the UK under the rules that the Dept for Transport set out". in a previous post;

then you went on to say It is obvious to us (and my own section do actually ask the pilots and aircrews) that different rules appear to apply to each UK airport.. as was mentioned, this can only be caused by the different managements at each location applying their own "little bit extra" on top of DFT rulings.

I think you are missing the fundemental problem this contradiction causes.

Crews are frustrated, annoyed (and even driven to calling security people "nobs") because of the massive inconsistancies. We are constantly told "oh thats the dft rules, mate...." but yet we know that the particular rule doesn't exist at another airport. Basically the system is being administered very very badly. It is causing frustration for crews and they can clearly see there is no added security value to it. Let me give you some examples

1. you said everyone is security checked. WRONG. armed police officers walk through at a certain uk airport. they do not disarm. they set off the scanner. they do not take their hat off. they go airside.

2. engineers bring through every imaginable cutting and slicing tool. also, i can walk into our engineering office and get any of these tools. i cannot bring a kitchen knife through. neither can an engineer!

3. a refueller (truck driver) cannot bring a can of coke through security. this is presumably because a coke can is more than 100ml and of course it may be explosive. after having his coke confiscated he gets back into the truck with 80 tons of explosive jet fuel and goes airside (with his 20 marlboro and a LIGHTER on the dashboard)

4. while the pilot is having his 10ml of water confiscated because it's in a bottle that is 250ml in size; the next person through security is an 18 year old contractor from a temp agency, who has got a job stocking shelves in Boots, and he's loading cases of 1L bottles of evian onto the scanner.....which the pilot can now go to boots and buy.

DaveG...you contribution is welcome and honorable. But I think you are missing the fundemental flaws in the system.

Well done to the person who said that using stress/flight safety as a reson to change security procedures is the wrong way to go. It really will distract from the core issue. Which is
1/security procedures are not effective. there are too many massive loopholes, and unessecery energy is being spent on confiscating toothpaste from cabin crew
2/some security staff are rude to airline staff, however, there is no quality procedures in place to monitor their performance (only a reactionary system when there is a complaint)

thx if your still reading....phew!
Bomber Harris is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2008, 10:48
  #55 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

A lot of very interesting points all well made however stress is one of the reasons that the improvements that you suggest should be implemented.

At the moment "security" is a big thing and the government is seeking all sorts of new powers to deal with the situation , unfortunately most of these are about as well drafted as the Dangerous Dogs Act. It is time that the security procedures were formalised and a robust national standard was set, we can no longer has individual airports making up local rules. This would change would remove 99% of the stress from flight crews as they would know the rules as they would be the same country wide.

The reason that a lot of the problems go unresolved is that there is no robust and independent system for resolving problems (the security industry sees this as an aditional cost). If an independent body existed then airport employees would not have to turn to CHRIP to seek some sort of redress.
It is quite clear that complaint to "security" is likely to result in the removal of the airside pass if not over the actual incident they are likely to "mark your card" and cook something up in the future. (this is not the policy of security management but the thinking of the small minded at the sharp end and the likely outcome of a security dispute).

So the bottom line is that a senior airline captain as the result of a minor dispute can have his airside pass and therefore his job taken away by the actions of a bottom grade security operative without any reference to a complaints procedure short of taking the airport authority to court.

Under these circumstances is it not surprising that people are stressed each time some people are checked by security after all an item that they are carrying my well not be banned at there base airport and the resulting dispute may cost them the job.

In my opinion by not taking action to deal with the stresses highlighted in the CHIRP reports the CAA is guilty of gross neglect of its duty of care to the traveling public and the people that it issues licences to. I wonder if the "Flying Lawyer" might like to comment on the validity of my opinion and if the airport workers unions could take a joint action to force the CAA to take a more active role in this area of standardisation of security controls with the aim of reducing the stress levels at work an most important improving flight safety.

I have to return to my first post on this thread and draw your attention to that part that stress played in the BEA Trident accident, the responsibility for reducing a well documented source of stress on crews should fall at the feet of the CAA, a responsibility that they don't seem capable of taking.
A and C is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2008, 11:44
  #56 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
On a brighter note, I know of several pilots who have had recent arguments with security staff. None have had their passes removed. In at least one case, the security staff management reviewed the incident and sacked the security staff member involved. Keep cool and the system will work... probably!
A few weeks ago I packed a carryon for a trip, instead of the usual hold bag. Stupidly I just transferred everything over, and forgot a 200ml bottle of sunscreen was in the pile with everything else.
When it was picked up at security, I apologised and handed it over for confiscation- only to have it returned, and the security staff arrange for it to be put into hold baggage for me! Quite correctly, they insisted the bottle could not travel in the cabin; however, they could not have been more pleasant about it. Thanks guys!
CarltonBrowne the FO is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2008, 12:25
  #57 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I ALWAYS take my drinks, shampoo, deo etc. with me in and have never been asked to remove them, not at any continental airport.
Only in the UK do they not follow common sense.
despegue is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2008, 13:28
  #58 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Apologies if it has been raised before:

Years gone by I used to carry a letterman or large Swiss penknife in my flight bag. I could take many things apart; not always put them back together again. However, en-route or on the ground in some out of the way place I have been able to effect repairs to simple things. No longer possible. But then I saw an engineer in the flight deck with a letterman. He told me he was allowed by security to bring it through as it was part of his necessary tool kit to do his job. I tried this argument at security and 'the jobs worth' said no way. Who's he to say what is necessary for me to do my job or not?
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2008, 14:30
  #59 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 3433N 06912E
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cancel the flight due to lack of safety equipment quote the applicable air navigation order
Hah! i like your thinking

the thing was he clearly wanted to have it but could be bothered to pay for one himself. as soon as my bag was opened and he clapped his eyes on it my fellow crew member said in my ear "that's gone"..

the result was i did a 180, went out side and cracked it on the kerbside, went back and handed it to him.. he was a little disappointed.

the point is, and i think we are all making the same point here, there is no ryhme or reason to the vagaries of what is and what isnt acceptable.

the claims of safety etc are frankly B/S.. there is enough available in airside shoppng to creat a whole host of impliments.

The Eithiopian Airlines 757 that went in off the comoros islands was hijacked by two parties who used a broken bottle of JD, purchased from Duty Free.
Bruce Wayne is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2008, 14:51
  #60 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: lgw
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A and C . Are you still getting the old turnips tickled on a regular basis?
You used to enjoy it at Stansted.
I thought youd had the knacker reduction op on the new private health contract.
I bet you wont mind them getting a fondle in Phuket

Tout alors, mange tout , viva l'airboos.
bushbolox is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.