bjcc, I trust that you are aware (though you failed to mention) that the incident to which you refer, occured when someone attempted to board an El AL flight.

It was El Al's security methods ALONE that thwarted the attempt - the explosives did not show up on an xray or anywhere else. Chances are that if she had been flying with any other airline that day, the plan would have succeeded.

No one here has a problem with El Al type security, so please do not use that incident as an example of what can be achieved by the total drivel we have to put up with on a regular basis.

BJCC, I know I tend to go on too long and bore people, but did you read my post past the first three sentences?
The woman with the bag in London was an incident stopped by El Al, which perfectly proves my point, thank you.
I tried to say, that the present procedures will not stop a determined hijacker(s), and there is no way to do so, since they can act without any weapons or using articles not banned (as did the 9/11 hijackers, etc) or provided by the airline itself (bottles, galley equipment).
I do not expect the simplistic attitudes of the public on a forum such as this, and it is a disappointment when so many buy into the garbage being fed to them by the authorities. Laws only apply to honest persons, they do not apply to criminals (and especially terrorists) so all the screening and hassling and inconvenience will not stop those people, it will, by distracting the airport staff, make it easier for them to slip through. There are not many terrorist attacks on airplanes, the majority of incidents are drunk, crazy or stupid people acting up. Terrorists do not seem to be targeting airplanes right now, but not because they are afraid of security at airports. Read a little about the 9/11 attack and see how long that took to plan, and how easy it would have been to stop it before it happened if only someone had connected the dots.
Pilots had been trained (and probably are still trained) to cooperate with hijackers, which included opening the door to them on demand. If they had known of the threat to use the airplanes as missiles, and that the hijackers had pilots in their group, the doors would not have been opened and the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon would not have happened. Simple problem, simple fix. Instead, the authorities have seen and seized the opportunity to grab more power.
Now they have expanded the military (and its budget) enormously, gone to war with anyone who does not agree with them, created new, huge, government departments (Homeland Security, TSA, etc), expanded all areas of surveillance and taken away our rights and freedoms with impunity and hardly a peep from us. And again I repeat: all this will not stop a determined hijacker.
Benjamin Franklin saw this coming.

Not picking on you...... just the easiest to quote....


My heartburn stems from the fact that (in the US), the least likely to require a weapon to take over an airplanes, are the only employees that are screened for weapons.

The argument about holding a pilot's family hostage IS weak, inasmuch as why go to the bother when you can simply get a an easily aquired, high turnover job on the ramp (bag thrower) and BYPASS "security" screening every day........ It goes against the KISS theory. Too many people get involved with a kidnapping. Invariably the law will called and the successful outcome of the hijacking attempt comes into question. They are crazy, but not stupid.......

Again.............

The reason d'etre for PASSENGER screening is to screen them for weapons that would allow them to take over an airplane. Pilots, per our job description take over an airplane, with or without a weapon, EVERY time we go to work......

We can walk through the screening process naked, and we still take over an airplane. What has been accomplished? Why couldn't the bad guys hold my family hostage to coerce ME to fly the aircraft into a building or simply give them a crash axe once airside? Pax screening for pilots could not prevent either from happening, but that is too far fetched I suppose. What about armed LEOs riding in the back? They are ALLOWED to carry a weapon...... What about their families? What about rampers? Are their families not to be considered either?

Weak argument, IMHO........


We are either trusted agents, or we are not. Screening pilots as pax accomplishes nothing.

boofhead & John Boeman

Yes the woman at LHR was stopped by EL AL security, the point is that she was stopped by security, the flavour of which does not really matter. In any event it was an example to show that such items can be taken airside without the knowladge of the person carrying them. A member of crew wouldn't carry something they didn't know the contents of? Think again it's happened!

Boofhead you make much about the impact on aviation of 9/11, and the downturn in caused. Sadly the public have short memories, are you and they prepared to put up with the degree of security operated by EL AL? I doubt it very much. Not when people want the easy of low cost airlines and turn up and fly. What effect on pax numbers do you think that would have?

There seems to be a difference between the way staff are treated in the US (if whats been posted on here is correct) in that only crew & pax are screened there before going airside. That is not the case in the UK. As far as I am aware that is not the case in the rest of Europe either.

The searches of ANYONE (with the exception of a few groups) have been going on in the UK for years.

So the prospect of crew families being held hostage is simplistic is it? Easier just to get a job airside? Not in the UK. Thats like saying it's easier to get a job in a bank and rob it than to hold the managers family hostage. Odd then, the IRA didn't do it that way isn't it? Not to mention numerous not so nice other people.

We all know you can fly you plane into whatever you want, that's not at issue, and no amount of security is going to stop that. What is at issue is to stop the other ways crews, or anyone else, can be used, coerced or conned into taking weapons & explosives airside, then giving them to someone else.

bjcc

The point I was trying to make was that accusing those you think are wrong of having "very narrow minded attitudes" and not having considered the "wider options" is silly because the same criticisms could be levelled at those who think that subjecting pilots to the same degree of scrutiny/security as passengers is so important. (NB: I say 'could', not 'should' because such comments are equally pointless either way.) I can see I haven't persuaded you because you've since added that perhaps they refuse "to look beyond what is obvious."
If the stength of your arguments fails to demonstrate why those who hold a different view are wrong, resorting to suggesting they must be failing to understand the issues (or they'd agree with you) is rarely persuasive - especially in a discussion such as this where experienced and informed people have clearly considered the issues but happen to have reached different conclusions after doing so.

BTW, I posted the pictures because I thought the scene was funny and apposite. Your Police magazine may well be right that those actual pics aren't what they appear to be :) , but they nonetheless exemplify that type of rigid unthinking 'jobsworth' attitude and/or patently absurd situation I suspect most of us have encountered at some point in our lives.

FL

No, it isn't simplistic, which is why there is less chance of success for the bad guys by using this method.

Well, in the states, the only employees that are routinely screened for weapons are aircrew, which, you must admit, is a bit ironic when you consider that we are the only employees that don't need a weapon to take over an airplane.

It's doubly ironic when you consider the reason behind screening aircrews, which was the mass murder of a planeload of people, committed by a RAMPER......... (PSA 1771...... 12/7/87) Prior to that incident, we were treated the same as all the other employees.

Can you see the irony? Does anyone see the logic? Does it still make sense?

As I've posted in the past, I would have a lot less heartburn if ALL employees were screened, since at least that would show that they are at least making a valid attempt at securing the airside. When you let most employees in the back door, what is the point of screening the least likely risks?

The old man in the train traveling over the Scottish Highlands was tearing up his newspaper into little squares and throwing them out the window. When asked what he was doing that for he replied "It is to stop lions from attacking the train, of course!"
"But lions don't attack trains in Scotland", he was told. " I know, effective isn't it?"

I happen to think that pieces of newspaper don't make us safer in the air either, but obviously many of you do.

Airport security is only one of the defences, and we are placing too much reliance on it, especially when it is 90 percent ineffective (my opinion). All it does is harrass the passengers and crew, and by making us congregate around security we become a better target. It also fans the panic many persons have when they get near the airport, and in turn that damages the airline business, which costs us jobs and financial security.

El Al does have intrusive security and for good reason, but I am not advocating we go that way either. I use them to point out that at least they have thought about it and developed procedures that work, proactive rather than the reactive knee-jerk response of the rest of us. If we put as much effort into thinking about what is needed as we do in hassling old ladies we could have a good system. We need a security that is able to step aside and allow for a free movement of the passengers, with no bottlenecks and no congregating. A watchful eye looking for suspicious characters and taking action only when experience suggests. An intelligent approach, if that is possible.

The real threat is in the air, and it is simple to make that safe:

1. Aircrew should, on receipt of a hijack alert from the cabin, lock and bar the door, cut off all communications with the cabin (to avoid pressure through threats), declare an emergency and land at the nearest suitable airport where the ground authorities can take over.

2. Cabin crew should protect the flight deck door, be watchful and report any problem promptly to the flight deck, but be careful not to overreact. They should be prepared and properly armed through training and, maybe, tasers or such and use these when necessary. If a hijacking occurs, let the flight deck know, try to regain control of the cabin and prepare the passengers for an emergency landing and emergency evacuation.

But I guess there are as many opinions out there as there are readers..

Excellent point Tripower, you are entirely correct in saying there is no point in screening crew, while other airport workers go unsearched.
Where we differ is what to do instead. If I read you correctly, you recommend stopping the searching of crews. My solution is to have everyone searched instead.

at one airport i worked at - i didnt have to go airside very often - but had a full access pass due to my job.
i was informed it had expired and had to get a new one.
i went to get a new pass and was told that i had to get the proper paper work before it could be sorted out - " oh and your pass expired 18 months ago" said the chap in the pass office, as he handed back my pass
this was post 9/11
as i was leaving that airport within 6 months i didnt bother to get a new pass - well they didnt seem bothered!

at the airport i work at now - i dont have an airside pass as i dont need to go airside regularly
a couple of months ago i did have to go airside to do a check of some equiptment and was correctly escorted by a colleague.
at the security check the woman told me my pass wasnt one issued by that airport, which it was - but she didnt appear to recognise it, her boss did though.
then after having been searched and screened etc - this chap asked if we were on official work as we couldnt really go through if we werent. we said yep - at work - his response? - "oh - its just 'cos youre not in uniform that i wondered "
well thats a tricky one - as i dont have a work uniform

so i can well understand the frustration of folk having to do this every time they try to go to work

i have no problem with there being security - but it does seem pointless at times

yaffs

I don't think anyone is listening. One apparently knowledgable poster has made the point that the purpose of the screening is not what you think it is.

I have a suspicion that he is right, but will not try and explain.

What other purpose might it have?

To convince passengers that flying is safe? If so it isn't working. Pax can see the obvious flaws in "security" screening just as well as the posters here.


To deter terrorists from even trying to hijack a plane? Ditto. Anyone with any inteligence who thinks about the issue will come to the conclusion that hightened levels of security checks do little to increase safety.


To cover backside of politicians and administrators in the event of another terrorist attack? This, i think, is at least partly true.

quote

:Correct me if i am wrong,...please,...but were the 911 culprits AIRCREW OR hijackers ???


I thought it was common knowledge that some of the 9/11 terrorists were jumpseating crewmembers, that is why jumpseating for everyone ended for quite sometime, now in the recovery stage.:confused

Correct me if I'm wrong, Dream Land

Dream Land,

You're wrong, all 9-11 hijackers were pax.

And 9/11 happened to aircraft operating under FAA Regs which already prohibited passengers on American-registered aircraft from visiting the flight-deck during flight.
Our knee-jerk reaction was to introduce the same law for British aircraft even though, as had been demonstrated, it does nothing whatsoever to deter terrorists/hijackers. :rolleyes:

Well Tripower55, I can tell you one person who cannot see the logic, the irony or anything else in that vein. That's bjcc.

bjcc. Again (why do I feel as if there are a lot of people banging their heads against a brick wall here?). If you read the responses from aircrew, carefully, you will find that, almost to a man no one has a problem with security.

Where, I believe, you are utterly wrong in your statement is when you say that "the flavour" of it does not matter.

"The flavour" of most of the "security" which we encounter is a very bad joke which does little if anything to make the flights we are operating any more secure. I will not repeat all the "measures" that have been taken which do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for the security and safety of the flight but do inconvenience flight crew.


When you hear of a case of this happening with a member of flight crew involved, do let us know.

I know that reading this you will immediately think "another prima donna who thinks that flight crew should not be inconvenienced!!!!"
It is not the inconvenience that rankles so much as the complete
abandonment of COMMON SENSE! That is all we are asking for, some common sense to be applied. Is that too much?

The purpose of screening:

Whatever it is for, it is not to stop terrorists. Consider what would happen if there were a couple of terrorists in line for security at, say, LAX. They are armed, have some knives and maybe a couple of hand grenades. They are fanatics and don't care if they die, so long as they take some of the Great Satanists with them.

What a perfect opportunity has been presented to them! Hundreds or more targets, none armed, all civilians, helpless! The terrorists' mouths must be watering!

Then the screener stops one of them, and says "Oi! you can't take that there great big gun onto the plane with you! Give it here!"

Use your own imagination for the rest, but next time you are flying, look around for what armed response is available, and ask yourself how they would manage to get through the press of panicked passengers to take these guys down. Talk about carnage. But wait, this is the same lot who plan to handle a hijacking of a 747 with an F 15!

Truly, anyone who buys into this garbage cannot have given it any thought at all. But rest assured, terrorists are not stupid enough to risk everything by carrying guns and knives. They don't need to, as they and other hijackers have demonstrated. Passing through security is easy, and there are plenty of ways to impose one's will on a terrified planeload of passengers without computers, nailfiles, exploding shoes and the other THINGS that security is so concerned about. So long as airport security is looking the wrong way, terrorists have nothing to fear. Airport security is a deterrence? Give me a break.

John Boeman

Yes certainly I will let you know...

Where do you want me to start

BA captain with a package to deliver for a freind...Not an offence at the time (probably still isn't) so no police action.

BM Stewardess with a tear gas canister, yes she knew what it was, but wasn't aware it's illegal in the UK.

Those are 2 I have dealt with, customs, to my certain knowladge have arrested crew with packages being brought back to the UK, beliving they were drugs, yes they were in the cases I know of, but easy enough to dupe someone into beliving it's drugs when it isn't.

So, I have let you know. So, as I say, wouldn't happen? It has!

Perhaps, you should go and have a look at the collection of weapons (exculding nailfiles etc) that the BAA take from pax/crew/airside workers in the UK. It will probably suprise you.


No, in fact I don't think you are trying to be a prima donna, and common sense does has to be applied. Common sense dictates that, yes you can point your plane where you like once the doors shut and there is sod all security can do about it. If that was the whole story, I would agree with you that there is no purpose to be served in searching any pilot. However it isn't the whole point, and thats is where you and I will have to agree to differ.

To all the security people out there.
All we pilots can ask for is a bit of discretion and dignity when you have to deal with us, be it when we are in full uniform in front of the public ( more about that in a mo) or when we travel in half uniform /disguise but you know we are crew.
Dont p*ss us off - we might be flying one of your family home at the end of a 14 hour day, so play it sensible and keep the crew smiling.
Oh and yes I have been in the queue a number of times in half disguise and seen pilots and crew being given the full monty and I will tell you for a fact that the fair paying public around me were not too happy I could hear the comments and feel the tension. It just ain't good.
BTW the slickest place I have been to yet in dealing with crew -LLBG
Go take a look and look at the psychology (sp?)- you have a lot to learn!

well said, LLBG are very professional. i'm late latching onto this thread, so forgive me if it's been said, anyong notice how obtuse 'rent a cop' is getting at EIDW. dealt with a couple of nasty individuals there lately and heard of many more incidents involving guys with id not in uniform, guys with laptops, cameras etc. it's not hard to be friendly and it makes a big difference.

bjcc (and everyone else), please forgive my pedantic behaviour as I place my forehead back against the wall.
Again you said, The first sentence is referring to some one carrying something without knowing they were doing it, such as the lady in the El Al incident. You managed to catch me out completely by tying your second sentence together with that. You see I thought we were talking about people attempting to put weapons or explosives covertly onto aeroplanes.
The examples you gave; presumably the Captain wasn't carrying either of the above (although I accept from what you say that perhaps, maybe he possibly could have been......) but he knew he was carrying something!
As for this "tear gas canister" the stewardess was carrying in her purse - the full riot control variety was it??
I think the post by ivor lobbon just above has brought us back to the burning question: why are flightcrew treated as a special target by security?

We have an a case here in my region where a lass faces the firing squad in Indonesia if convicted of drug smuggling. The claim the lady makes is that her baggage was tampered with. Recent news is that a crim from a gaol here in AU has lent support to the claim, saying that the drug was planted into the luggage after it was checked in.

Since the introduction of these new security measures, I wonder how many crews out there have discovered missing baggage locks. Certainly a few snaps should be expected, but in countries outside of AU do you at least get to see a sticker or tag indicating a bag search was done & your lock thrown away? Not so the case here.

John Boeman

I'm sorry, but I think I have missed your point up to your last paragaph.

I agree with ivor lobbon , in that the searches should be done with dignity etc. See the post you quote me from I think I said exactly that.

As to crew being targeted by security? I don't know if thats true or not, I will take your word for it. But it could be said that as some crew have broken the rules and not used common sense then maybe they have ruined it for the rest of you????

Actually, a non flight crew type employee is the one that ruined it for the flight crew........

The tsA love to exert their authority on easily identifiable, authority figures. The inmates are running the asylum.

bjcc

You say you missed John Boeman's point:

You and he may have been at cross-purposes re the difference between unwittingly carrying an item, and knowingly carrying a package but not knowing the contents.

That aside, JB's point was -
You claimed there had been instances where a member of crew had carried something airside when they didn't know the contents.
He challenged your claim, saying "When you hear of a case of this happening with a member of flight crew involved, do let us know."
You responded implying you could give numerous such instances ("Where do you want me to start?"), gave two incidents from your own experience, some unspecified anecdotal evidence from Customs officers, and concluded with a triumphant flourish saying "So, I have let you know. So, as I say, wouldn't happen? It has!"
JB doesn't think you have substantiated your claim.

________________

IMHO, one of your examples might and the others don't:
If you mean the BA Captain carried a package for a friend even though he didn't know what it contained, then it does.
The second one doesn't. The stewardess knew what the item was - she simply didn't know it was illegal to carry them even for self-defence in the UK. Many people don't. (They are legal in other countries - including some European countries, I think.)
In your Customs stories, the people who carried drugs knew they were doing so.

Your claim may well be correct - I have no idea - but I admit I thought (from the confident way in which you made it) that you were going to come up with some actual examples where flight crew had carried items airside not knowing what they were - or perhaps instances of flight crew unwittingly carrying something because they had been deceived into believing it was something else.

How long does this thread have to go on ??????

C'mon lads and lassies, it's one of the trials and tribulations we all have to live with in these not so Golden Ages of Aviation...

I think there are more important things to worry about (co. financial stability, work conditions, will the dog bite me as I have been away so often) other than the inconvenience of going through what we all recognize is a security PR exercise to keep the bureaucrats happy.

Time to move on ?

security on arrival
 

Hadn't used Orlando Int'l (MCO) for many years until recently.
Arrived from Europe on non stop direct flight to find all PAX put through same type of security as PAX departing!
No problems on flight. Aircraft arrived safely after 9hr30min flight. Do the MCO security not trust security at European Airports. ON leaving Terminal how long would it take me to purchase gun downtown Orlando?

Had the same problem at MCO recently. I arrived, cleared customs, and was wanting to go outside when I arrived at a security point. I thought I had taken a wrong turn and attempted to back-track but was told that was the only way OUT. To get to the street, I had to change terminals using the monorail located on the sterile side of security. Why were we considered to be on the non-sterile side after clearing US customs, I have no idea, since that terminal had no contact with the outside ?
In MCO, forget putting a cabin prohibited item such as scissors in your checked in luggage, because after arrival you will have to go through security with that checked luggage to get to your rental car.

Yes, and surprise surprise, they failed the audit last weekend, comprehensively and very visibly, so the knee jerk reaction has been to be even slower, which has meant passengers that arrived with more than the airline's minimum time before departure then missed their flights because of the delays at security.

Security needs to be visible to be effective. That doesn't mean oppresive, unpleasant, aggressive, rude, gratuitously offensive and all the other things that have been commented on here.

It's no wonder that air rage is becoming a bigger issue. People now have to arrive at departure -3 to be sure of getting through the system, the entire terminal area is non smoking, there's more than a little hassle getting through the system and to the aircraft, then they're trapped in the tube for up to 11 hours. 14 hours without nicotine for some people is hell on earth.

OK, I'm only a paying customer and I don't know all of the details but for what it's worth...

When I fly, I put my life in the hands of the crew (those at the pointy end and those who's job it is to help me off the plane if something goes wrong). I want those nice people to be as calm and unhassled as possible. The crew have a difficult enough job getting me from A to B without having any extra BS to deal with.

I can't do the risk assessment so I don't know if any sort of security check is needed for the crew (there have been fors and againsts in this thread). However, if checks are needed they should be short, efficient and professional. Above all, they should not be in the same line as us, the punters - that just leaves everyone (crew and pax) feeling awkward.

It's nice to see a Professional Pilot, who knows the real story about airport security, stand up to the litany of endless bull!!!!! hassles at airport security checks round the world.

I tip my hat to you Sir. Good for you and well done.

Passengers need to know the added expense is wasted dollars pure and simple.

The endless hassle of the innocent has got to stop and common sense, surely must return to an industry gone mad with paranoia.

Anyone of us could have done what was done (back when) stark naked.

Now. Where's my Scotch?


Enough is enough.:ok:

Preliminary results from the latest TSA audit shows that the government organisation is no better than the private screening services that operated in the US before 9/11. So all the bs is a waste of time, officially. Yet the traveling public (and many otherwise intelligent aircrew) accept it as necessary. Amazing.

Here is a pretty interesting article


Stupid airport security, part 3
Posted: April 20, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Several airport security screeners have sent me polite letters criticizing some of my comments in my last two columns, prompting this question to you: In managing our personal security, should we guard against possible or probable threats? Consider the measures and the resource expenditures I might take to guard Mrs. Williams and me against all possible threats to our security.

Even though I live in Pennsylvania, well outside of tornado alley, I'd construct a tornado shelter because it's possible for a tornado to strike anywhere. I'd no longer get into my car and drive off without doing a thorough check of my car's hydraulic brake system for leakage. I'd build an iron-reinforced roof to guard against the possibility of a meteor. I'd also purchase a metal detector to do sweeps of my property, to guard against the possibility someone might have buried a land mine. I'd hire a detective and forensic accountant. Even though Mrs. Williams and I have been married 45 years, it is possible that she might be stashing some of my money into a Swiss bank account.

Were I to take those measures, I'm sure the average person would label me as either paranoid or stupid. Why? It would take resources away from guarding against more probable threats to our security, such as burglary. While my focusing on all possible threats wouldn't be smart, it would make me a prime candidate to become a Transportation Security Administration official. Their vision of airport security is to focus on the possible as well as the probable.

It is indeed possible for an 88-year-old man crippled with debilitating arthritis to be a terrorist. It's possible that one of our Marines returning from Iraq for stateside reassignment – carrying ID and official reassignment orders – is also a member of al-Qaida ready to take out an airplane. It's possible for a mother accompanied by her four children, or a 92-year-old woman, to be "mules" paid by terrorists to bring something on board to blow up the plane.

It is also possible that a pilot plans to blow his plane up with a shoe bomb. That's reason for making him take his shoes off. It's possible that a blind person carrying a cigarette lighter will give it to a terrorist accomplice to light a shoe bomb in flight. There are other possible security threats. Women's stockings and underwear, as well as men's ties and belts, can be used as garrotes for strangulation. Soda straws can be used to blow poison darts.

While these are all possible threats, the question is, how probable are they? Resource expenditure on security threats just because they are possible means that those same resources cannot be spent on those far more probable. Moreover, if there were full implementation of the program to permit pilots to be armed, the more probable threats would become less so. In other words, arming pilots and some crew members would lessen a whole class of security threats.

The TSA's determined opposition to passenger profiling is in itself a threat to airport security. Take their additional screening. They have every incentive to be politically correct. But suppose the TSA had to pay $1,000 to each passenger they selected for additional screening who was found to be no security threat. You can bet they'd develop a screening method that made more sense, and it would include some sort of passenger profiling, including racial profiling. And, by the way, liberals shouldn't fret, because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in several affirmative-action cases that provided there's a compelling state interest, race can be used in decision making.

It's my opinion that sensible TSA security measures would allow us to reallocate resources away from policing against possible but improbable threats to policing the far more probable source of threats – one being our border with Mexico.