Call your union/congressman about security checks
 

This nonsense has to stop. The same agency that issues me a licence to operate a 280 ton airliner over the cities and close to the landmarks of the United States also issues rules that make me a SELPX (selected passenger, high risk) when I fly deadhead on the way to my work.
I work for one of the largest cargo airlines in the world, and our crewmembers deadhead on other airlines hundreds of times each month. Almost on every US domestic deadhead sector, we get singled out as security risks, for the simple reason that we hold oneway tickets bought just 2 or 3 days before the flight by our company travel office. It does not make a difference wether we travel in uniform or not.
Three days ago I deadheaded from LGA to ATL on Delta in Firstclass. My boarding pass said SELPX, and I was not treated as a trusted employee but got the full security treatment twice by the airport screeners, whose qualifications have been discussed thoroughly on these pages. If I can not be trusted according to FAA rules and profiling, why would the same agency allow me operate my 280 ton airliner within US domestic airspace just 3 hours later without even looking at my licence? Again, this happens to all of us, all the time.

Nobody ever asked me for my pilots licence or company ID, or maybe for my itinerary. Easy and simple ways to verify that someone actually is a licensed pilot going about his scheduled work are not used. On purpose?

Does this really help to increase the flying public's trust in the airlines and the FAA? Doesn't it, on the contrary, show that they do not believe in their own licensing and background checking system? Look, they don't even have faith in their own captains.

We all need to contact our union and congressmen / senators about this. In the meantime, I tend to agree that the day that you get this extra security treatment for no apparent reason other than being a pilot, is probably not a good day to operate an airliner. Maybe you need to recover from the humiliation. And once there are delays, everybody will notice.

Yes, a regular security check is ok. For all of us. What I object to is the constant selection as a SELPX/security risk for traveling deadhead on my company's orders. This happens to a lot of US and international pilots right now. Rumour has it, that it even happened to military personnel on their way to deployments. What I know for sure is, that it happens to airline pilots who operate contracts for the US Military.

Why it is fully understandable that there was a rush to more security in the days after the terror attacks, we now need to make sure that the new rules make sense and actually increase airport security, instead of wasting precious resources on licensed individuals with thorough background checks.
<img src="mad.gif" border="0">

The sorry state of airport security is one of the big reasons that the major's are going to stay in financial trouble. The Government doesn't really get it. Aviation is the life blood of the new global economy and they impose ill thought out ideas to impede its very progress.

Airport security is a joke and the Governments feeble efforts to fix it just magnify their complete misunderstanding of the aviation industry.

On one flight I had to open my flight bag, remove my flashlight and show the batteries to security. It's all about POWER folks and the Government has given these people the power...

People traveling on the short hauls find it not worth the hassle to run the gauntlet of security and then have to pay all the fees. Why bother, take your car....

The Government doesn't get it, the tail of security is wagging the dog. Or perhaps it's a few misguided security chiefs who see spooks at every corner who control the tail that wags the dog.

Who ever said that politicians were smart? Boy did they ever get that wrong...

[quote]Yes, a regular security check is ok. <hr></blockquote>

Bluecrane, I am not flaming you, but it is this exact thinking that has led us to this idiotic situation! It is not OK, there is NO reason, for a part 121 pilot to be screened. What is needed is what ALPA has been asking for since the late '80's, REAL nationwide SIDA cards.

FWIW, when the screening of flight crews was mandated as a result of a ground ops guy downing an airliner, everyone complained, much like we are all complaining now. NOw thats OK.....

When (completely groundless) mandatory drug sampling came up, we all complained. Now we get sampled AFTER we've flown a trip and that's OK! And since the goobermint has been sampling, surprise, the number of pilots caught is not even measurable (However, the number of false positives is very measurable! ). The Feds say that their program is working, as a prevention.

In a few months, after we all get sick of complaining about this idiocy, even having morons groping your crotch and digging through your dirty laundry, in full view of your passengers will be OK!

FWIW, I've been typing my fingers off to everyone from my CP's, union guys, ceo of my co, senators, congressmen etc. etc. etc.

The Greatest Security Show on Earth will continue, and, like it or not, WE are the stars!

Hey dood, lighten up. How in the heck does the computer know that 1. You are a pilot for the largest cargo carrier in the world, 2. who bought the tickets for you, 3. you are who you say you are and 4. that you are a deadheading crew?
If you fit the profile, then get someone to change the system by putting a code on the ticket to identify a crew member or ???
Dont blame the security guys for the inconvenience. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

Security checks are not OK. We are the ones flying these birds from A to B. We should not be subjected to this humiliation by the lowest common denominators hired off the unemployment line yesterday.

At least one of the terrorists had a pilots licence, does this mean he should not have been searched ?

I have a staff ID that does not carry a company name but has a site code BA, If I show this will they assume I am a BA pilot and not search me.

penltbx2, I would have thought anyone who believes that somebody who does not fly an aircraft is "the lowest common denominators hired off the unemployment line yesterday" is probably not somebody that should be allowed anywhere near an airport.

[quote]How in the heck does the computer know that 1. You are a pilot for the largest cargo carrier in the world, 2. who bought the tickets for you, 3. you are who you say you are and 4. that you are a deadheading crew?
<hr></blockquote>

Just remember the #1 rule when dealing with computers........garbage in, garbage out!

It would be VERY easy for Bluecrane's company (as well as any other airline that has it's crews deadhead on different carriers) to include some code denoting that he is a pilot for the company. Couple this with a positive ID card (using something like an ATM pin # system, voice scan, retina scane fingerprint etc. etc. etc. If I can buy goods all around the world with a credit card, then the powers that be can come up with a way to positively ID me!), then there would be no need for him to come up as a selectee, or even be subject to screening at all!

FWIW, on my company, when a company pilot jumpseats, he/she is not subject to the selectee crap......


[quote]At least one of the terrorists had a pilots licence, does this mean he should not have been searched ?<hr></blockquote>

Was he a UAL or AAL pilot?

[quote]I have a staff ID that does not carry a company name but has a site code BA, If I show this will they assume I am a BA pilot and not search me.<hr></blockquote>

The ID should positively ID you as a non threat. There are numerous ways to do this. ALPA's been trying for years to get this through. I would have though that in the wake of 9/11, that this issue, at least, would have been addressed. It hasn't. We got cute little stickers for our worthless SIDA badges (that only allow us to walk the 100 feet to and from our planes on the ramp....after we pass through security!) and I have to fill out an I-9 form, and have a secretary copy my passport to see if I am still eligible to work here (U.S. citizen, born and raised 121 ATP for 14 years!)!

[quote]penltbx2, I would have thought anyone who believes that somebody who does not fly an aircraft is "the lowest common denominators hired off the unemployment line yesterday" is probably not somebody that should be allowed anywhere near an airport. <hr></blockquote>

I'm not flaming you, but have you actually been screened in the US lately? I haven't been to the UK, so I can't comment on the IQ of your "security" screeners, but in the US, penltbx2's comment is the norm, rather than the exception. "Security" in the US seemes to attract the types that are otherwise unhirable. Speaking or understanding the english language is a sure way to NOT get hired! Surly and condescending attitude are a big plus!

Underexposed, there is a big difference
between going out to fly a Piper and going out to fly a Boeing. I do not mind going through security when I'm dressed in street attire and going to fly my Piper, but I do have a problem when I am in uniform with proper ID's going out to fly the Boeing. Instead of issuing ATP's they might as well give us all Private licences.

I totally agree with Bluecrane et al. This reminds me of the "pre 9/11" incident where a security guard seized a miniature Swiss Army knife that a Captain was carrying. The Captain went to the cockpit of his assigned aircraft and returned with a fire axe to show the guard.

I believe the Airlines (employers) through the respective unions should put the pressure on the FAA to put a stop to this outrageous treatment of aircrews.

If pilots are such a risk, let's park airplanes nationwide for 24 hrs, or for however long it takes to bring pilots into the decision making loop in regards to security. Let's make it secure. Not a friggin dog and pony show.

fwd -

Reliance on "scarecrow" measures, intended to instill consumer confidence

Thursday January 17, 12:57 pm Eastern Time
Press Release
SOURCE: The Boyd Group/ASRC
BoydForbes Report: Airport Security Still Lacking; Explosive-Detection Efforts 'Window Dressing'
EVERGREEN, Colo., Jan. 17 /PRNewswire/ -- A new study finds that political game-playing and lack of cohesive security strategy has left U.S. airports unacceptably vulnerable to future terrorism.

Ground Stop: The Failure of Airport Security, is the first independent report on the nation's airport security progress. It concludes that airport security is going in the wrong direction, with weak, politicized direction from the DOT and Congress, and reliance on allegedly "heightened'' security measures that don't work. It is published jointly by BoydForbes, Inc., a new aviation security consortium, and The Boyd Group/ASRC, a leading aviation consulting firm.

The blunt, to-the-point 20,000-word report states the situation clearly: the DOT's inept direction has provided little improvement in security, proven irrefutably by continued security breaches at many airports since 9/11.

"Security is anticipating, identifying, deterring, and responding to threats,'' noted David Forbes, President of BoydForbes. "The DOT is reacting, circling the wagons, waiting for the next attack. The initiative is still with the terrorists.''

Ground Stop notes the DOT ignored basic security steps immediately after 9/11, implementing instead ridiculous measures that made the nation a laughingstock. One example: instead of National Guard troops securing airport perimeters, they were stationed like mannequins at screening points watching sloppy security companies allow breach after breach.

Ground Stop outlines what must happen to assure airport security and efficiency, including independent oversight of security performance, tough penalties for failure, professional screening staff with accountable supervision, use of new explosive detection technologies, national standards for airport law enforcement, national airport ID cards, and security event process-mapping at all airports.


The report outlines failures of the DOT, including:

-- Reliance on "scarecrow" measures, intended to instill consumer
confidence, at the expense of real security;
-- Losing public confidence with foolish "enhancements" such as
confiscating tweezers at screening points;
-- Reliance on explosive detection technologies with questionable
reliability;
-- Reliance on disparate, non-interactive airport security systems.
-- Failure to demand accountability from FAA officials in the wake of
9/11.


The Aviation Security Act was found to be "vapor, not substance,'' leaving the same DOT in charge, restating existing laws previously ignored, and making screeners federal employees without any substantive increase in qualifications. As for explosives screening, "The DOT and Congress are substituting PR for effective screening techniques,'' according to Michael Boyd, co-author of the study. The most egregious failure of the Act: no independent oversight of the Transportation Security Agency. "The TSA is merely shifting titles at the DOT. It was the DOT's FAA that failed repeatedly to meet security mandates. Without independent oversight, the TSA's effectiveness is fatally flawed.''

Mr. Forbes: "Some say that 'we need to do something.' But that's not license for politicians to do the wrong things.''

Reliance on "scarecrow" measures, intended to instill consumer confidence

One thing is certain. If people need to arrive at the airport 3 hours early for a one or two hour flight, the short haul carriers in the US are in deep, long term trouble. We need a national SIDA card now and we need to have rampers screened as well. I'm tired of seeing unguarded gates when we have guardsmen hanging around in the terminals. Other issues regarding stupid security workers have been beaten to death and we'll just have to deal with them

Steve
Former FO/Current CFI

If you watched the interview last night on PBS with the new security chief of the U.S. you will realize that there is no hope for the future. Answering questions from a prepared script, he did not know the process involved in trying to retrieve luggage when a match was not achieved. This is going to be the guy in charge of US security and he has not a clue how the system works. Any "ramp rat" would know the answer and the costly downstream effects. This guy was living in his own dream world, able to "talk the talk" to his political bosses, but unable to "walk the walk" when it really counts. These folks do not understand aviation, period.

[quote]This guy was living in his own dream world, able to "talk the talk" to his political bosses, but unable to "walk the walk" when it really counts. These folks do not understand aviation, period. <hr></blockquote>

Tan,

You've hit the nail right on the head......As usual, they are using political solutions to create the illusion that they are solving the problem, when in actuality, the problem is still there.

I have not flown within the US for some years and cannot comment on the security arrangements there. Here in the UK terrorism has, sadly, been a problem for many years. I routinely operate military helo's into civil airports. Every time I have gone, with my crew, into the terminal for a meal or whatever I have had to undergo the standard security checks (metal detector, and search when invariably it goes off) to get back to a gate for pick up to go back to my aircraft. I should add that we are all in blindingly obvious military flying kit and carrying military photo ID. This cuts no ice with the security people. However, we are treated politely, which has been my usual expeience with security in the UK whether operating or travelling as a "civilian".

Also, a high proportion of all pax are "frisked" as a matter of routine going through security here. I am not sure if this makes life any safer, it can't make it more risky and I don't get offended by it because everyone is treated the same way.

On the note of baggage matching to pax and screening of bags, I am afraid the Pan Am tragedy over Lockerbie taught us the hard way. I have seen bags offloaded here, causing missed slot times, because a pax had failed to show having checked their luggage. Which would you rather have, a late departure from the ramp, or an early arrival in the next world? I am sorry if this appears sharp but these are the unpleasant realities of the world we live in, there are some very bad people in the world who would murder hundreds without a second thought. I can live with a little inconvenience if it denies them that chance.

My only other comment would be that a good security system needs good people to make it work, rudeness by security staff does not enhance effectiveness. Proper selection and training, monitoring of performance and a decent salary would help a lot however.

Bluecrane- I have deadheaded 16 legs since 9/11, and have been a SELPX on every single one. I am not the most sensitive of men, but in KMIA I was reduced almost to tears as I removed my belt for the 22 year old Cuban who could not speak even basic English. I removed my shoes, and he felt the soles of my socks. He took my disposable razors, even though I knew they are allowed. I didn't even argue. Looking at the line behind me waiting to be searched, I saw two other deadheading pilots.

Oh, I felt the wrath from on high of our forefathers in aviation.... Imagine Ernie Gann or Dave Behnke or the guys that muscled DC-6's around bowing for this type of humiliation! They got respect - because they commanded it, and accepted no less.

Random searches - hey, I'll agree to that. But grabbing all the deadheading freight dogs - it is stupid, irrational, and insulting.

How about the people who work on the ramp, baggage handlers, mechanics etc? They bypass this entire x-ray machine system! They go downstairs and swipe their card, while they punch on numbers. Nothing is x-rayed.


How does other pilots or flight attendants feel about this?

keepin it in trim

You missed the point, it was not about luggage match, no-one is against the concept. Its the fact that the new US security chief didn't understand the process of retrieving a bag or the costly downstream effects. When you're the Chief of Security and making the rules, you had better understand the process...

Unlike the military, costs are a big part of our daily lives.

Cheers

Luggage match? I thought this had been going on for years, after the Lockerbie thing. Well now they are so confused, a flight today I think in or out of Denver, (I could be and am probably wrong about the city) was delayed 5 hours because of one passenger who had NO luggage. The system didn't quite know what to do, no luggage to match to the passenger.

I'll be running the gauntlet at LAX tonight as a pax on international. I can't freakin wait.

[quote]Oh, I felt the wrath from on high of our forefathers in aviation.... Imagine Ernie Gann or Dave Behnke or the guys that muscled DC-6's around bowing for this type of humiliation! They got respect - because they commanded it, and accepted no less.<hr></blockquote>

Old Ernie must be rolling over in his grave. My dad was a Pan Am guy, a new hire in the "Clipper Skipper" days, and when we discuss this crap, he always says that those old timers would have told the feds to flake off........

[quote]Random searches - hey, I'll agree to that. But grabbing all the deadheading freight dogs - it is stupid, irrational, and insulting.
<hr></blockquote>

Wait a minute, your a Dawg? I think all of you guys need to be strip/body cavity searched at every opportunity! I know all about you guys! <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> (Just kidding....I worked for DHL for a while prior to my current job!)


[quote]When you're the Chief of Security and making the rules, you had better understand the process... <hr></blockquote>

Why is that? We haven't had an FAA administrator that understands aviation since Hinson. Heck I think he was the only pilot in the bunch as well!

and then it gets worse........


<a href="http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020119-79003878.htm" target="_blank">http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020119-79003878.htm</a>