security, restore the balance of power

[in my last airline]

PM
My point is along similar lines to you but, I do believe that crews could be held to ransom to some degree or another and that a certain amount of security deterrent acknowledges that. I think the DFT has to consider ALL types of air transport operations. It is incapable of streamlining a taylor made approach to each situation. So we all get the full treatment. We are all treated as suspects by the security staff and that is quite right in my opinion.

Windytoo;
Nuffsaid = enough said
I apologise if you were insulted at being promoted to bank manager from pilot. See, it is the attitude of, 'don't you know I'm a pilot', that pisses of everybody else that deals with us and in turn gets us a few extra rub downs!

[FLCH]

I recently went through the Known Crewmember Program on a trial basis here in the States.

All I can say is: what a breath of fresh air !!

[Poltergeist]

it is a shame that Piltdown Man comments when he is incorrect. Damming system as a whole by attacking the front line staff for the system is disingenuous to say the least. I am not in front line aviation security but I am working to improve it for everyone internationally . I have studied risk management in aviation security and the assertion that crew could not be made proxy attackers is quite wrong and has no empirical support neither does the conclusion that security staff are a bigger risk. There are many cases of proxy attacks in europe, no one is exempt unless you have found some evidence to the contrary. The biggest risk is misinformation.

The problem clearly here is one of how the security is conducted at the front end and industry is making advances having recognised the importance of human factors as air operations did themselves after analysing accidents. There are some staff who are as described in their approach and they are being dealt with on the whole. I have to say, I have also witnessed crew who have been rude and uncooperative from the outset - there are bad apples in both worlds folks!

So how do we go forward? the consultation about SeMS is not going to affect screening in reality. It is about industry playing a greater part and government playing a lesser part, it is about the management of security, the metrics involved and how they are acted on. This will mean that aviation entities will be given an outcome but will have a big say in how they achieve it. The requirement to screen all pax and staff is unlikely to change. The argument for relaxing measures for crew is, in my opinion, likely to fail. Where will the line be drawn? do we then screen engineers, baggage handlers, caterers? after all, they all have trusted positions that involve the safe operation of aircraft.

Retraining of staff is, I believe the answer. Backed with new technologies security will be less arduous for all but standards will be high. You may be interested to know that in the UK at least, airport operators are spending a lot of money to improve things and get their house in order. The EU also is putting a big effort into this.

As for the 'numpty' title would those who use it refer to pilots using the same name? after all the number of people killed by crew error far outweighs the headline figure for security staff. Such posts do not help those of us trying to put things right.

[inbalance]

I have taken away a Knife set (wooden Block with about 10 Kitchen Knifes by the securitys in Berlin one Day.
They put it in a red plastic cover, transportet it to the aircraft, where it was handed over to the captain, which was me.

[MathFox]

Poltergeist; having worked with computer security professionals I would like to see one question answered honestly by the aviation security profession:
Can you guarantee 100% protection against terrorist attacks?
I guess the answer is no. Because the only way to achieve 100% protection would be to keep all planes on the ground.

And it is fine with me to hear a honest no, because I know that drunk drivers are a bigger threat to my health than terrorists. The correct question is:
What is an affordable level of safety we can achieve?
And then take effective means to achieve that safety level. Magnetometers have prevented smuggling aboard dozens of firearms (and prevented lots of hijackings.) Explosive sniffers are standing unused on US airports.
And I think that treating crews and travelers with some respect at the checkpoint is one of the ways to make the safety check more effective. If the "safety professionals" see the general population as aide in their fight against terror (instead of "bulk to protect" or even worse: the enemy) they would create security systems that are both more effective and more efficient.

Inbalance: that's unfair, you already have the crash axe!

[Poltergeist]

Mathfox, I have always maintained that you can not achieve 100% security and keep an operation going no more than you can make air travel 100% safe.
It is about managing a risk and if you look at what I am saying we are in agreement. I believe it wrong to put the entire blame on the front end. Security until recently was purely reactive and the tragedy of 9/11 caused a knee jerk at the time and that was probably right. What has been wrong is that it appears to me that regulators have not stepped back, whether through fear or doubt. what is clear that risk management seems to have played little part and this is where we are working hard.
As for the magnetometers, this is 'old tech' and we are seeing more portal scanners being introduced. I can not speak for the TSA and its use of equipment but threats do vary nation to nation and what they ar looking for may not be what we are looking for if that makes sense.
a range of technologies and an approachable front end will actually keep people onside according to our research.

Inbalance - One of the problems we are facing. That should not have happened, prohibited items should travel in the hold. an example of interpretation of badly drafted directives!!!

[Shiny side down]

Originally Posted by Poltergeist

As for the 'numpty' title would those who use it refer to pilots using the same name?

It's an appropriate term, used to describe anyone that fits the bill- security, flightdeck, cabincrew. Security staff appear to have the majority, though, and it serves only to make the good ones stand out. The majority of staff might on the whole be at least good at their job, and often much better. Recruiting the lesser quality fools, though, simply drags the whole process down.


examples of stuff that is just plain stupid.

Liquids in sealable bags.
1)Staff search. If you forget to put it in an easily accessible location for the screener to access it, most accept this, but there's a number (and they are repeatedly the same people) that will subject you to a tirade of abuse or patronising comments.

2) The process would carry more weight if it weren't treated as a commercial exercise by certain airports, where they are sold to people whose current sealable bag doesn't meet the exacting requirements of the person screening the fluids.

Treatment of customers
Verbal and physical manner approaching aggressive handling, by folk who do not have the patience, skill or training to deal with international customers. The old stereotypical activity of shouting louder to make a non-english speaker understand might be funny on Fawlty Towers, but simply adds stress to an already undignified process.
Sometimes, this treatment may be a foreigners first impression of the UK (or the US) and only serves to reinforce any negative preconceptions.

Treatment of property
Staff search. Having personal property handled with little or no consideration whatsoever. Damage has happened, and it is often not possible to identify at what point in the 'process'

Having personal property searched without any effort to ask first, discuss what was to happen, without waiting for it to be done in controlled manner. Object, and find yourself in the situation of having to defend yourself.

Staff search. Inappropriate touching. I watched a colleague go from disgruntled by heavy handed attitude, to point of resigning by telephone. Simply by having to repeatedly being subjected to such treatment. (fortunately, in this case, that particular security person hasn't been seen in a while)

Staff search.
A US airline's crew, UK airport. cursory glance at crew passes, Courteous handling.
Local crew. Each and every member of one aircraft crew, flightdeck and cabincrew, being subjected to an extended search of every item, with instructions being barked out.

TSA staff/priority route at a new york facility
A huge guy, obviously in awe of similarly proportioned gangsta/rappers, with mannerisms copied straight from some B-movie style prison drama.

Many airports facilities have adapted poorly to increasing measures. However, much more effort is made to make them into shopping malls than into pleasant and secure places to travel from or to.


Legislation is seemingly made by people with limited understanding of the nature of the problem, or how it can be implemented.
The result of that legislation is increased security staffing requirements.
A problem is that those staffing requirements are filled by too broad a cross section of people, who are further disadvantaged by inconsistent standards, exacerbated by often inadequate facilities.
As flight crew, the ramifications of a confrontation with these people can be quite damaging.

[MathFox]

Poltergeist; it is good to hear there are sane people working on airport security too .I've traveled quite a lot in a previous job and observed the "security scan" at several airports; I've seen agents at the checkpoint doing a courteous and thorough job. I've also observed some of the issues "shiny side down" mentions... but have seen other things that trouble me more:
* kitchen knives in bars/restaurants in the "sterile zone". (UK and US)
* TSA agent "lost" the owner of a backpack that was selected for secondary inspection.
* talking about keeping guns out of the sterile area: what about airport (military) police?

I agree that facilities for the security scan do not suffice at many airports; it often is hard to find enough space for them, they must be at the entry to the gate area and can not be sprinkled around the concourse as shops can. Proper equipment in a proper working environment can IMO only make the scan better; both in experience for the customer and in quality of the scan.

[Poltergeist]

Shiny, everything you cite is down to the delivery not the legislation. That is being worked on.
My point about 'numpty' is that a large number of people are citing attitude. Attitude is a two way thing and from my part, whatever started it, name calling is counter productive in achieving the goal we all want.

Liquid requirements will go when the govt stops deferring the EU directive btw. Airports that charge for bags in my view should be 'outed' most still provide them free.Again, this is not a legislation but a customer service issue.

As for the broad base of staff, remember that there was a rush to fill positions in the aftermath of 9/11 but recruitment standards are now a targeted area. It is not perfect today nor will it be tomorrow but the point is there is much being done.

What the review is proposing in the UK is that the legislation will state a requirement and the airport will work out how best to implement it. As I said, it is unlikely to change screening as we know it for a long time but I suspect airports will be more attentive to 'customer' needs as it can no longer hide behind the regulator causing the problem.

I do not want to hijack (probably the wrong term ) your thread as it is clearly something you have strong feelings. I just want to give hope that things are being done and at the same time redress some of the incorrect statements made.

[con-pilot]

In sprite you degrade my comment , lack of a fine grasp of the english language. Please elaborate on all levels of how incorrect i am in my previous statement. Damb I hate comments W/O actual content, say your word MAN!

I am sorry that I caused you to misunderstand my comment. I was not degrading you, I was giving you a complement for doing good, much better than I if it was reversed.

As for not commenting further, I cannot for security reasons, but rest assured receiving permission for a pilot to carry a weapon is not just applying for a license.

Again I apologize for any misunderstanding.

[r75]

That video clip is perhaps out of date,the carrier I work for amended that security issue a long time ago,you cannot just lift the carpet and access the MEC like that on their Widebodies and without wishing to speak out of turn,considering this website is accessed by many people outside the aviation industry.....and yes I have read your closing comment.

[SouBE]

Being a relative newcomer in aviation (just 5 years) I still remain surprised that after somewhat rigorous CTC checks etc etc we are still subject to the same security searches (in some cases MORE so) than the SLF. As already pointed out, crew have endless opportunities to get up to no good without the need to have their half full bottle of water removed, or the yogurt they bought for breakfast to be confiscated. I find the inconsistencies of the security staff at a certain ex-BAA airport south of London amazing; what passes as acceptable one day gives ground to thorough bag searches the next. Some clearly accept they are performing a function and do it diligently and courteously...if only it was all like that!

In a 'typical' working day, I can cope with angry or upset passengers, delays, medical emergencies, constant time constraints and pressures, company dictates etc but the one thing that sure as hell puts a dampener on my day is walking through the doors marked 'SECURITY'.

That said, I do love my job and hope I do it to the best of my ability. I just look forward to the day that this is one less burden to endure.

[MidlandDeltic]

Security until recently was purely reactive and the tragedy of 9/11 caused a knee jerk at the time and that was probably right. What has been wrong is that it appears to me that regulators have not stepped back, whether through fear or doubt. what is clear that risk management seems to have played little part and this is where we are working hard.

SLF here. You may be working hard Poltergeist, but the industry / regulators / legislators are now in a position where they can't roll back. Why? Public opinion, and ambulance chasing lawyers. Look at the (partially related) furore in the UK at the moment over alleged reductions in immigration checks over the summer. If any roll back is sanctioned, it would be political and career suicide for the decision maker the next time there is an in-flight incident. Note the is, with no if.

I suggest it will not get better, although improving technology may allow faster and less intrusive scanning, although personally I am not happy with full body scans, and if I was using them daily I would be even less so.

[Poltergeist]

Hi MD, Some of the front end will not change but it goes wider than that. I did not mention in the thread the research we have done into passenger attitudes.
Passengers are more positive about security generally than crew and staff and there are a large number of factors that cause this.

The step back needs to come in the prescriptive nature of the regulator. As said, i do not expect to see screening going but by passing more of the decision process to the industry, we should see improvements as you have said. That is the step back that is needed. The outcomes of safe and secure flight will remain the same but the delivery will change and hopefully for the better.

[JW411]

I have to say that I am glad that I have retired.

However, my reaction to the bloody-minded numpty used to be to be reasonably polite and just to get on with whatever fantastic idea he had about me smuggling something on board my own aeroplane that he had in mind that morning.

In all fairness, there really weren't many complete numptys. Most of the guys were either friendly or pretty civil.

My reward for putting up with their idiocies was the knowledge that I was soon to punch out of the top of the clouds into the sun and revel in that moment that reminded me why I had taken up aviation in the first place.

My enjoyment was enhanced enormously with the thought that said numpty was still down there surrounded by complete negativity for the next eight or twelve hours and with no future save to make a living at close to minimum wage, probably for the rest of his/her life.

However, there was one event that finally persuaded me that it was time to retire.

I was operating out of one of our London airports one night. I had a deadheading captain and first officer with me (in uniform) positioning on the jump seats.

I went through the whole business with my flight bag, suitcase etc and was reassembling my belongings after the usual pointless search when I saw my fellow (deadheading) captain about to go through the metal detector arch.

For a joke I said "Bloody Hell Geoff, have you told them about your pacemaker?"

Well, the sh*t hit the fan in spades.

"Stop!!!!" "

"You can't go through there!!!! You'll have to have a complete body search instead".

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

Anyway, I was well senior to Geoff so I decided to keep quiet and buy him a beer later.

When it was all over, I asked the numpties just how many captains they knew who had pacemakers and, if the knew any, would they be happy to get on an aeroplane with a pilot so equipped with their wives and families and go on their summer holiday.

The subtelty was still lost on them (2 males and 1 female).

To this day, I simply cannot believe that such people have so little intellect or that they cannot see any fun in life.

How sad.

[Craggenmore]

In my opinion it's the security staff airside screening airport workers who are the numpties. Unbelieveable attitudes.

When I worked in the UK, this was most def. the case. I used to hate the security process as aircrew.

Now, having moved away from the UK, I have been 'patted down' once in the past year and have never queued.

A lovely and respectful way to start work and another unspoken about benefit I enjoy each day.

[Herod]

As a side issue, can anyone explain why liquids have to go in a resealable plastic bag, bearing in mind that once through security I can do what I like with it?

[Piltdown Man]

can anyone explain why liquids have to go in a resealable plastic bag

I believe that it's to enable a 'vapour check' to be performed. A sealed bag will prevent/reduce the dispersion of chemicals that are being looked for. So providing certain liquids are actually as dangerous as they are purported to be, it may makes sense.

PM

[stuckgear]

I believe that it's to enable a 'vapour check' to be performed. A sealed bag will prevent/reduce the dispersion of chemicals that are being looked for. So providing certain liquids are actually as dangerous as they are purported to be, it may makes sense.

if that's the case then i see not a hole, but gaping chasm in that security process !

[Tinstaafl]

That's stupid. They make no demand for the containers *inside* the resealable bags to be....well, resealable. So one could load an approved bag with a sealed container**. As for the idiotic limited quantities rule: Do they not have the wit to comprehend ne'er-do-wells sending more than one person through? Each may only be allowed through with small amounts but send 10 or 20 or 30 people through and it doesn't take long to accumulate significant quantities. Mind you, why bother? Just get into one of the servicing vehicles that must come from outside. Those things are not searched in any meaningful way.


**All on the assumption that it's really possible to mix a viable concoction from whatever you carry through with you within the equipment & time restraints.