Airport Security- An Inside view
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: where the money takes me
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airport Security- An Inside view
I have been a reader of this excellant site for over 3 yrs and do enjoy, a lot of the posts, So at last something ,I know a little about, Airport security is no better now than it was 3 yrs ago, in fact it,s getting worse, Having worked for an Airline, I have spent hours checking pilot,s and cabin crews id,s reference,s and background for their airside passes, also engineers and anyone who has to go airside, I cannot get my head round all thease little s@@@s in security uniforms giving professional airline people a hard time, when on the flash of a police or customs and excise warrant card they bow down as through god just come threw, proper Training , salary and motivation and COMMON SENSE IS REQUIRED , BA security audits a joke , having worked with them , free drinks and a nice hotel is their priority
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be frank, I don't think you have any grasp on reality...so you have sweated a couplke of drops of blood have you to check references, which are oh so easy to flasify. To check with previous empolyers which of course can't ever be invented. As opposed to a Police/Customs or immigration officer, who has been vetted properly with full access to goverment records and the Police National Computer. Just for your information, Security at Heathrow do not bow and scrape at Police (I can vouch for that first hand, being an ex Heathrow Police Officer), in fact they were obstructive to us to. Being a aviator does not make you immune from security checks just as it doesn't mean you can't drive at 90 in a 30 limit, shoplift or have too much to drink before you fly. All of tha above being things I have dealt with pilots cabin crews and engineers for. Secuirty at some airports may be full of jobs worths but there is sod all point in acting as a child and saying well they don't have to do it why should I.
Airport Security
I must agree to a certain extent with both the postings immediately prior to mine.
However yet again I would say that, any security at all be it at airports or the local bus stop, is only as good as the weakest link.
Therefore can someone explain to me exactly why Police Officers,
Customs Officers, members of the Immigration staff and airport senior executives ARE NOT subject to the same security and screening measures as the rest of the travelling passengers and aircrew etc. I would also like to know the reason why certain personnel have immunity from the security and screening procedures.
Fair enough we need security measures for personnel, but surely this must apply to ALL repeat ALL personnel, otherwise it's really a waste of time and a purely cosmetic exercise.
P.S. If my understanding of the position is wrong can someone in authority please advise me.
However yet again I would say that, any security at all be it at airports or the local bus stop, is only as good as the weakest link.
Therefore can someone explain to me exactly why Police Officers,
Customs Officers, members of the Immigration staff and airport senior executives ARE NOT subject to the same security and screening measures as the rest of the travelling passengers and aircrew etc. I would also like to know the reason why certain personnel have immunity from the security and screening procedures.
Fair enough we need security measures for personnel, but surely this must apply to ALL repeat ALL personnel, otherwise it's really a waste of time and a purely cosmetic exercise.
P.S. If my understanding of the position is wrong can someone in authority please advise me.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SE Asia
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can the....for example police.... be required to undergo the same security checks.....after all they are allowed to bring guns airside!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! unlike for example your average pilot passenger or groundstaff member!!! Doesn't seem like much thought has gone into this post just a lot of invective. Perhaps you should target the real cause of our grief..those who make all this security necessary in the first place.....the terrorists!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, there hasn't been much though go into some of the above posts.
First exactly what screening are police not subject too? At BAA airports they carry the same passes as everyone else. Unarmed Police are made to walk through metal detectors, however, whatever a Police officer is carring, be it an asp (extendable baton) cs/pepper gas or a firearm he is permitted to carry it. A member of the BAA security is not, so how are they going to remove it? Then what? call another police officer to collect it and promptly conficate it from him....fairly soon you would have the whole station sitting round being detained and even less security!
As I stated in the last post, police customs and immigration are vetted, to a far higher degree than airline staff, cleaners and airport workers. At some stage you have to trust that higher vetting and look to where the lightly threat comes from.
To be honest this thread smaks to me of envy because the control authorities are not under the control of comercial concerns.
First exactly what screening are police not subject too? At BAA airports they carry the same passes as everyone else. Unarmed Police are made to walk through metal detectors, however, whatever a Police officer is carring, be it an asp (extendable baton) cs/pepper gas or a firearm he is permitted to carry it. A member of the BAA security is not, so how are they going to remove it? Then what? call another police officer to collect it and promptly conficate it from him....fairly soon you would have the whole station sitting round being detained and even less security!
As I stated in the last post, police customs and immigration are vetted, to a far higher degree than airline staff, cleaners and airport workers. At some stage you have to trust that higher vetting and look to where the lightly threat comes from.
To be honest this thread smaks to me of envy because the control authorities are not under the control of comercial concerns.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 74
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just my two bob's worth!
BJCC says that "a Police/Customs or immigration officer, who has been vetted properly with full access to goverment records and the Police National Computer" is OK.
What about the (admittedly few) FBI,CIA, MI5 & Special Branch operative who have been "turned" with disastrous consequences?
BJCC says that "a Police/Customs or immigration officer, who has been vetted properly with full access to goverment records and the Police National Computer" is OK.
What about the (admittedly few) FBI,CIA, MI5 & Special Branch operative who have been "turned" with disastrous consequences?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: on the edge
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilgrim, so when you state BA Security audits were poor and 'a nice hotel and drink' was the most important issue, how can you really say that?? You say you were one of them, but when 5, 10 years ago?? I understood that the Security team were very good, admittedly I'm referring to around 1998-9 when I met one in DEL, he seemed very thorough and well versed. He said that he often stayed in 'dodgy hotels' that were nearer the Airport to save taxi costs for BA. Take as you find I suppose...
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ignoring the CIA, FBI and MI5 for now, because quite honestly I can't be bothered with fantasy....Assuming you have found one Policeman and turned him, then he has got himself stationed at am airport, what do you then suggest you do.....like I said earlier, do you remove all the articals he carries, although he is quite entitled too? Picture the scene...
A serious disturbance, airside terminal 1 at Heathrow...Police screech to a halt at a BAA control post...run to the metal detector....
BAA Guard "Got anything sharpe or could be used as a weapon mate?"
Police officer places handcuffs, cs gas, baton on table
BAA Guard, "ohhh you can't take them through here mate, you know the rules, I'll have to call the police"
Policeman "Er what do you think this is a bus conductors outfit?"
BAA Guard "Rules is rules mate"
Police then called, and the whole issue is repeated, meaning more police are called.....
Meanwhile, the fight has now developed and one of the paries is laying in a pool of blood...Ambulance screeches to a halt....crew leap out through metal detector....Well sure you can work out the rest!
After an hour the 22,000 members of the Met Police are all assembled at a BAA control Post, the airport is littered with Police cars...someone mutters..."I hope they don't set fire to anything"
Now you can either do one of 2 things. First, sorry if this is a dull repeat...but you can concentrate on what is more lightly to happen, and sadly that includes airline staff bringing things they shouldn't to work (and in some cases would render them liable to arrest whereever they were)
or
B. put up with the inconvience and at least be reassured that there is less chance of the flight deck door caving in and a grinning man with a sun tan muttering sweet nothings in your ear.
of course if you do option B, then at least if it happens on the ground there will be police who can turn up, with equiptment to try to deal with the problem...they wont all be at a BAA control post waiting in a vicious circle.
A serious disturbance, airside terminal 1 at Heathrow...Police screech to a halt at a BAA control post...run to the metal detector....
BAA Guard "Got anything sharpe or could be used as a weapon mate?"
Police officer places handcuffs, cs gas, baton on table
BAA Guard, "ohhh you can't take them through here mate, you know the rules, I'll have to call the police"
Policeman "Er what do you think this is a bus conductors outfit?"
BAA Guard "Rules is rules mate"
Police then called, and the whole issue is repeated, meaning more police are called.....
Meanwhile, the fight has now developed and one of the paries is laying in a pool of blood...Ambulance screeches to a halt....crew leap out through metal detector....Well sure you can work out the rest!
After an hour the 22,000 members of the Met Police are all assembled at a BAA control Post, the airport is littered with Police cars...someone mutters..."I hope they don't set fire to anything"
Now you can either do one of 2 things. First, sorry if this is a dull repeat...but you can concentrate on what is more lightly to happen, and sadly that includes airline staff bringing things they shouldn't to work (and in some cases would render them liable to arrest whereever they were)
or
B. put up with the inconvience and at least be reassured that there is less chance of the flight deck door caving in and a grinning man with a sun tan muttering sweet nothings in your ear.
of course if you do option B, then at least if it happens on the ground there will be police who can turn up, with equiptment to try to deal with the problem...they wont all be at a BAA control post waiting in a vicious circle.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: U.K.
Posts: 805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the lighter side, has anybody given a thought for the poor traffic wardens at Heathrow, determined that "THEY SHALL NOT PARK" when somebody actually had the temerity to park a tank in the "set down/pick up" area the other day. Where do you put a parking ticket on a tank I wonder? Will the DVLC computer have the name and address of the registered keeper to send the fine to based on that funny registration number? For that matter how do you wheelclamp one when it has no wheels. Er - if you need it to be towed away, is there available sufficiently heavy lifting and towing equipment?
Just a thought!
P.P.
Just a thought!
P.P.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Kingston, Surrey, UK
Age: 73
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As has been previously said, it’s not just the police that walk through security checks, a number of other groups do likewise. Immigration officers (IO’s) – even if the items they are carrying set off the metal detector they are allowed through un-challenged and un-searched. Similarly, customs people. In T3 most don’t even enter via the “normal” staff route as far as I can see and never go near a metal detector. They may be more highly vetted, but that doesn’t stop someone dear to them being held hostage unless they take item X airside for some group of nutters. Please don’t think I am against either of the above groups, I’m not. It is the rules that allow them to do this that need to be looked at, the groups concerned are only complying with the rules.
Finally, I’ve never seen the point in putting flight deck crew through the security loop at airports. None would need a gun or knife to crash the aircraft – they already have that ability in their hands/heads. It was introduced, as far as I recall, so they were leading from the front as an example to cabin crew. If flight deck crew lead from the front by example, shouldn’t IO’s and customs be doing the same thing?
Finally, I’ve never seen the point in putting flight deck crew through the security loop at airports. None would need a gun or knife to crash the aircraft – they already have that ability in their hands/heads. It was introduced, as far as I recall, so they were leading from the front as an example to cabin crew. If flight deck crew lead from the front by example, shouldn’t IO’s and customs be doing the same thing?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: where the money takes me
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mmm seem to have ruffled, a few feathers bjcc, that was not my intention, And at no point did I mention only BAA airports, been into FCO,TIA, or AII , lately a complete shambles, and as we all know if you come in via CCs you can bring in your own Hand grenade(not Funny) the jury is out on that one, I however believe that the security of Airports should not be 100% in the commercial sector, peatnuts= Monkeys , getting the right mixture of private and goverment co-operation is important, for effective security. darkstar I never was one of them, totally independent , you have my regards
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: on the edge
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilgrim, I do agree that there is some merit in specialist companies undertaking independent Security Inspections. A compant such as Control Risks for instance. Good Company, Excellent people and knowledge, but too expensive for Airlines? Then again, what price security, one incident and an Airline could be history. I don't know whether they've branched into this side of the business...they'd make a mint!
Whatever happens,.. happens!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 19' N, 82' W
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc;
i am a crewmember, I have , as far as I can recollect, never brought anything to work that I shouldn't have and I resent having to leave my pocketknive and nail-clippers behind.
You must agree with me that it is at least as likely that an armed Security or law enforcement person attempts to comandeer an aircraft as me holding my pocketknive at the troath of my first officer.
Further, the excuse that someone could impersonate a crew member is one of the reasons given that we have to submit to this charade called a security check, well, I submit that if someone can impersonate a crewmember they can do the same as a Policeman/women.
So forgive me if i have a hard time regarding the current security procedures with anything more then contempt, especially so since I learned that it is quite allright to come on board with matches and butane lighters. my confidence in the personell administering these procedures also got quite a boost when i learned, that in order for them to pass the test the first time they were supplied with the precise answers to the test questions in advance.
Just in case anybody thinks that those high and mighty Pilots needed to be brought down a peg or two, I can assure you that i feel quite humble these days, as I am still working for the same pay I got 10 years ago and working conditions have only deteriorated since then
i am a crewmember, I have , as far as I can recollect, never brought anything to work that I shouldn't have and I resent having to leave my pocketknive and nail-clippers behind.
You must agree with me that it is at least as likely that an armed Security or law enforcement person attempts to comandeer an aircraft as me holding my pocketknive at the troath of my first officer.
Further, the excuse that someone could impersonate a crew member is one of the reasons given that we have to submit to this charade called a security check, well, I submit that if someone can impersonate a crewmember they can do the same as a Policeman/women.
So forgive me if i have a hard time regarding the current security procedures with anything more then contempt, especially so since I learned that it is quite allright to come on board with matches and butane lighters. my confidence in the personell administering these procedures also got quite a boost when i learned, that in order for them to pass the test the first time they were supplied with the precise answers to the test questions in advance.
Just in case anybody thinks that those high and mighty Pilots needed to be brought down a peg or two, I can assure you that i feel quite humble these days, as I am still working for the same pay I got 10 years ago and working conditions have only deteriorated since then
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Crawley UK (that's next door to LGW - 1800m next door!) Handy for work though.
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK Crew lets get to reality. Yes I am Involved in aviation security and yes I work for a control authority that does not in law need to be searched. If I am stopped carrying a firearm what are security to do? I am vetted and yes I accept that in the past vetted people have turned. But at the end of the day trust has to be drawn somewhere or the industry would collapse and there would br no jobs for you. Look at it this way, if we have sky marshalls and secure doors to that flight deck, should we have a skymarshall on the flightdeck to make sure the pilots are not suicide terrorists? If so should we have a second skymarshall to make sure that the the first skymarshall is not a terrorist? then we ought to have a third to ensure that the good one out of the other two is more likeley to prevail.
Aviation Security is regulated by DFT and if you find fault with it you should report it through your company to them not on a site that can be accessed by the frightened travelling public that pay your wages or Mr Bin Laden and his mates. There is much that is not publicised about security and for good reason. Please entrust it to those whose job it is, after all they don't tell you how to crew planes!
AP
Aviation Security is regulated by DFT and if you find fault with it you should report it through your company to them not on a site that can be accessed by the frightened travelling public that pay your wages or Mr Bin Laden and his mates. There is much that is not publicised about security and for good reason. Please entrust it to those whose job it is, after all they don't tell you how to crew planes!
AP
A few years ago I watched someone 'exempt' himself from airside security by showing his warrant card. He was dressed in cyclists' lycra, had a cycling helmet on his head and his front wheel under his arm. I later found out he was Special Branch and he commuted to work like that and changed into a suit in his airside office. So as he was on his way to work he wasn't even on duty, surely an abuse of the system?
I accept there might sometimes be genuine operational reasons for warrant holders to be exempt but the main reason for them stoutly defending their exemption is that it's an excuse for them to jump the queue and avoid the hassle that everybody else has to put up with every day.
I understand that this exemption is currently being reviewed by the Government. Good.
I accept there might sometimes be genuine operational reasons for warrant holders to be exempt but the main reason for them stoutly defending their exemption is that it's an excuse for them to jump the queue and avoid the hassle that everybody else has to put up with every day.
I understand that this exemption is currently being reviewed by the Government. Good.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you, Aeropig! You said it nicely. I am hoping to become a pilot someday, but right now, to pay the bills, I am a screener at a Canadian airport. Every airport is different, but believe me, low-paid or not, we do our best to make planes as safe as possible for everyone flying. And we get a lot of sh*t thrown in our faces for it. But hey, that goes along with the job. I can't really discuss rules on certain personnel going through security (that's info I cannot divulge). But we don't screen flight crew anymore, but we know how frustrated they used to be(we had to hear about it enough) and, I can't speak for other screeners, but we never gave crew a "hard time". We were merely doing our jobs. Screeners never decided to screen crews, but we had to do it if we wanted to keep earning a paycheck. I am aware that many consider screeners to be uneducated idiots with no common sense, but that isn't true. A lot of us are educated, but have to take jobs that pay the bills (aviation isn't the only industry that is hard to get a job in). And pilgrim, unless the screeners really do give you a hard time (rude, rough, etc.) cut them a little slack. They're the ones looking out for you.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole thing
I am very reassured that the DFT are the control in general for airport security. I don't think so. As many of you have pointed out your concerns regarding C & E, HMI and Police. I find this incredable as many of the major UK airports are wide open with vast amounts of building work and vast amounts of immigrant labour with a 'shed' load of sympathys, not with standing the rest of us.
If you want 100% security then you have to stop flying. The UK is as good as gets on a good day. Like some previous contributors I to have been involved in security work throughout the world and many of the routes flown by UK airlines and those coming into the UK leave a lot to be desired and are not in the same ball park as the UK.
As for the trash in yesterdays 'People' regarding the security lapse at Kent International Airport. It does tell us that LHR/LGW etc are clearly getting harder to get into as not so many years ago the press would go straight to a major airport and get airside.
If you want 100% security then you have to stop flying. The UK is as good as gets on a good day. Like some previous contributors I to have been involved in security work throughout the world and many of the routes flown by UK airlines and those coming into the UK leave a lot to be desired and are not in the same ball park as the UK.
As for the trash in yesterdays 'People' regarding the security lapse at Kent International Airport. It does tell us that LHR/LGW etc are clearly getting harder to get into as not so many years ago the press would go straight to a major airport and get airside.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fascinating report from the Canadian Senate (Standing Committee on National Security and Defence):
The Myth of Security at Canada's Airports (PDF 256pp 829KB)
From my limited experience (as SLF) I would be rather surprised if the situation was very much better in the UK/US/Europe - and these are probably among the best places from a security viewpoint.
[The authors have a very witty turn of phrase, not often observed in UK parliamentary committees: "Plastic knives don't cut it"!]
Couple of quotes from witnesses:
“You take away a hat pin, you take away some nail clippers, and everybody leaves the airport saying “Oh, isn’t that wonderful, they are so zealous . . . we don’t have to worry. And it is all nonsense. Absolute nonsense.”
Aviation Company Owner
“The current status of airport security is not very good. I could take anyone in this room in two minutes and train you on how to put a bomb on an airplane for any city in the world. If you are willing to pay the first-duty shipping fee, we can guarantee what flight you will be on – it is that wide open.”
Chuck Wilmink
Former Corporate Security Manager, Canadian Airlines
The Myth of Security at Canada's Airports (PDF 256pp 829KB)
From my limited experience (as SLF) I would be rather surprised if the situation was very much better in the UK/US/Europe - and these are probably among the best places from a security viewpoint.
[The authors have a very witty turn of phrase, not often observed in UK parliamentary committees: "Plastic knives don't cut it"!]
Couple of quotes from witnesses:
“You take away a hat pin, you take away some nail clippers, and everybody leaves the airport saying “Oh, isn’t that wonderful, they are so zealous . . . we don’t have to worry. And it is all nonsense. Absolute nonsense.”
Aviation Company Owner
“The current status of airport security is not very good. I could take anyone in this room in two minutes and train you on how to put a bomb on an airplane for any city in the world. If you are willing to pay the first-duty shipping fee, we can guarantee what flight you will be on – it is that wide open.”
Chuck Wilmink
Former Corporate Security Manager, Canadian Airlines
Last edited by Pax Vobiscum; 17th Feb 2003 at 16:34.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with the quote that it is all "absolute nonsense".
Airport security in the US particularly is way over the top, and is responsible for the impending demise of UAL and probably AA, since it is the security system itself that is driving people away from flying. It also gives the public the perception that flying is not safe, when it highlights all the "scares", even though they always turn out to be false.
I am not aware of any case where the airport security actually prevented a hijack attempt. All the "weapons" they have confiscated have been taken from passengers and crew who had no intention of using them on the flight, ie they were not terrorists.
For better safety, the attention should be on the airplane, since that is where the action will be. Yet the only things done so far seem to me to lead to less safety, not more. Such as disarming the crew (not even a screwdriver or nail file carried), or putting in a solid door that once breached gives the hijacker total control or adding air marshalls to only a tiny fraction of flights (and those few are so overworked that they are now given alternating duties as plain clothed airport security).
Of the latest series of actual airborne attacks (most drunken or crazy passengers) only one had a "weapon". That was the El Al flight when the criminal tried to overcome the flight attendant with a pocket knife (she screamed and ran away). The other incidents did not involve weapons (one had a couple of candles, one had a bottle of petrol, one (successful) hijacking was accomplished by a crazy who had a tv remote control, one tried to use an asthma inhaler and one involved a group of three unarmed men who broke into the flight deck and beat up the pilots), which shows that even if you had 100 percent airport security you would not be able to stop a hijacker who wanted to take over the airplane; only the crew and passengers can do that. But the crew is not given any tools or training in this regard, and we all know how useful the new doors are.
Meanwhile we crew have to put up with the insanity and being treated as if we are criminals, and if we argue the TSA now has the ability to have our licence yanked! Now that is Airport Security 2003.
Airport security in the US particularly is way over the top, and is responsible for the impending demise of UAL and probably AA, since it is the security system itself that is driving people away from flying. It also gives the public the perception that flying is not safe, when it highlights all the "scares", even though they always turn out to be false.
I am not aware of any case where the airport security actually prevented a hijack attempt. All the "weapons" they have confiscated have been taken from passengers and crew who had no intention of using them on the flight, ie they were not terrorists.
For better safety, the attention should be on the airplane, since that is where the action will be. Yet the only things done so far seem to me to lead to less safety, not more. Such as disarming the crew (not even a screwdriver or nail file carried), or putting in a solid door that once breached gives the hijacker total control or adding air marshalls to only a tiny fraction of flights (and those few are so overworked that they are now given alternating duties as plain clothed airport security).
Of the latest series of actual airborne attacks (most drunken or crazy passengers) only one had a "weapon". That was the El Al flight when the criminal tried to overcome the flight attendant with a pocket knife (she screamed and ran away). The other incidents did not involve weapons (one had a couple of candles, one had a bottle of petrol, one (successful) hijacking was accomplished by a crazy who had a tv remote control, one tried to use an asthma inhaler and one involved a group of three unarmed men who broke into the flight deck and beat up the pilots), which shows that even if you had 100 percent airport security you would not be able to stop a hijacker who wanted to take over the airplane; only the crew and passengers can do that. But the crew is not given any tools or training in this regard, and we all know how useful the new doors are.
Meanwhile we crew have to put up with the insanity and being treated as if we are criminals, and if we argue the TSA now has the ability to have our licence yanked! Now that is Airport Security 2003.