Pjlot

I think this may be a case of mis reporting, liquid nitroglycerin is highly unstable, I doubt 'Yousef' would have made it out the front door without it expoloding.


Raggyman, I feel for you but TBH we are not concerned with restrictions for pax, it's crew who are subjected to the same restrictions and do this day in day out that this thread is focussed on as we are the ones who have much more dangerous equipment available to us than scissors. We are also background checked and are, well, I am, happy for any level of screening to be issued with our airside pass and/or licence if it means we are left in peace to get on with doing as professional a job as possible for the REAL safety and security of our pax or in my case cargo.

"Raggyman, I feel for you but TBH we are not concerned with restrictions for pax"

Stellair, get real, if you fly short haul around europe with mixed fleets, then as sure as eggs is eggs you end up paxing. Some of us do it at least once per block of duty, if not more.

You therefore end up going through two sets of aggro, the keen, hard working eagle eyed sandwich pinchers at crew gates, and the totally overwhelmed alert helpful uniformed search police at the pax gates. With night stop gear, and flight cases, and restricted to one bag, and testing of liquids.

Raggyman is absolutely right. To denigrate his post is to show contemp to the people who buy our tickets, and pay YOUR wages. It's a nonsense for EVERYONE. Period.

Nubboy...I think it may be you that needs to get real...I've read pprune long enough to know that most aircrew, (other than regarding safety related matters), couldn't give a flying f*ck about us SLF.
And before any hand wringing posts use the search button to assist yourselves in a little research.

As I said in a previous post - secruity for SLF as it stands is, I'm afraid, a fact of life - for aircrew I agree it needs addressing.
But they HAVE to be seen as separate issues otherwise it ain't gonna get any better.

Now send a hostie...I'm thirsty..:p

No offence to SLF but this is about aircrew security procedures the two are very different.

I stand by what I say.

I have a whole series of duties where I start by operating, then have to PAX to a outstation to night stop then operate over the next few days. At the end of it I then PAX back to base before I START operating....

A chance to see both sides:ugh:

so tell me again how the issues are unrelated.

But Raggyman is right. It's the UK where I get the most hassle, no matter how I go through security.

Nubboy,

I show contempt for no one here, we have a common interest.

Re read my last post and raggymans.

He is a passenger and this thread is regarding AIRCREW security procedures. They are seperate issues. Not once did I say I am not concerned about pax, that's a ludicrous statement they do buy tickets and pay YOUR wages, DHL,TNT,UPS and the Post Office pay mine. His opinions are more than valid and I do agree with him entirely if the title of the post was 'security for passengers'.

Like yourself I often travel as a passenger to meet my aircraft all over europe but the difference is when I do so I'm not operating an aeroplane and using my airside pass/licence to clear security and so accept that as any other passenger I must be subjected to the same rules.

Oh, by the way SLFguy, You, the SLF are the most important thing in the world when you are onboard the aeroplane, making sure you, everyone else and the aircraft get to destination safely is top of the list, no exceptions. I felt a bit sorry for you there mate :sad: well, right up to the point youre sipping a G+T :{

What happens at security, as you well know, is another thing outside any sphere of authority aircrew have!

You speak sense :ok:

And you, sir, need to remember who ultimately pays your wages. :rolleyes:

as far as i'm aware myself and all the other aircrew I meet are keenly aware who pays our wages. I think the pax security is ludicrous as well as the aircrew security HOWEVER what is more rediculous is the idiots in whitehall who think that both should be treated the same when they are plainly not. Both security channels should be reviewed, however any sensible risk assesment and security assesment would and should come out with two completely different solutions. the issues that security are looking for are completely different with aircrew and pax. The 'liquids' issue serves to illustrate the stupidity of the whole situation, but that is only a symptom of the real underlying issues.
Before Pax and aircrew tear each other apart about who pays who's wages, perhaps we all ought to remind BAA and the DfT who pays their bloody wages. :*

What about a 24 hr " withdrawal of labour " ( sounds better than " strike " ). That should focus a few minds.
I had the misfortune to travel through LGW a few months ago, and have vowed never again, if possible.
Totally stupid procedures. Luckily i do not live in B`liars paradise, and i have great sympathy for you that do.
" Grinning Gordon " will not be any better. Good luck.:sad:

Yes, we had the worst day ever as passengers at Kingston, Jamaica last year.

Five hour transit stop, then flight delayed with several additional security checks! The passengers revolted and refused to pass through the 'last' security check. After intervention by the security manager the whole thing became a farce.

Then, after all the checks, security guards were waiting on the way to the aircraft to relieve passengers of liquids which had passed the previous checks!!!

Well that was it for my partner, she poured the two bottles of Coke over the legs and feet of the lady security officer and walked off in disgust!

Sticky situation.

SITW

Paying PAX, but signed the petition anyhow, cause I think it is crazy. The main thing is though is that aircrew and us (PAX) suffer the same pain by having to put up with job worth security staff, who show absolutely no common sense in my opinion. That is probably more of the point I am making really. I would just hate to have to put up with it every day! Would drive me absolutely mental.

Anyhow, not sure what it is with Heathrow, but nothing but nightmare when I go through there. Anyone would think that they are new to running an airport. That is a totally different topic.. but now I take a 4 hour detour just so I don't have to go through there.

Raggyman

thanks for your comments and adding your signature.

I feel that you're observations and comments are valid on this forum, especially in the light that often I go through the same garbage screening as you as a passenger, then go to the crew room on arrival, and go through the same rigmarole again as operating crew. Both times in the same uniform, same person, yet once with a pasasenger ticket and once with crew ID.

More often than not the crew checks are more annoying.:mad:

The point you make about avoiding Heathrow is especially valid for us commerciallly.

I'm entirely in favour of appropiate levels of security, for everyone. But for goodness sake let them be consistent, practical and focused instead of this arbitrary officialdom we suffer with now.

I don't know who is running the show there, but they are definitely not very good at what they do.

I am totally convinced that there is a moNkey (capital N inserted to protect the innocent), in charge of things there. Would love to give them the hint that, if you have large security lines, to actually put on more staff. God knows they charge enough in tax that is for sure.

:confused:
Quote:
US prosecutors said the device was a “Mark II” “microbomb” constructed using Casio digital watches as described in Phase I of Operation Bojinka of which this was a test. On Flight 434, Yousef used one tenth of the explosive power he planned to use on eleven U.S. airliners in January of 1995. The bomb was designed to slip through airport security checks undetected. The explosive used was liquid nitroglycerin, which was disguised as a bottle of contact lens fluid. The wires he used were hidden in the heel of his shoe
I think this may be a case of mis reporting, liquid nitroglycerin is highly unstable, I doubt 'Yousef' would have made it out the front door without it expoloding.

I take your point but this is not being misreported, check out the NTSB for the full report.

All in all i understand the frustration go air crew having to go throught continuous security checks! If this were to change and a more relaxed approach was taken, what sould stop some plot being carried out. It may take years of planning but past attacks on airlines have proven this to be the cacse. Also what is to stop some unscrupulous crew member commiting a terrorist act while on the job! I know security checks are completed into the past of airline employees but alot of airlines do not link these with foreign authorities!

Yeah, well the whole thing is silly anyhow when you think about it...

The war of the Imaginary Friends - My god is better than your god.

To be honest I don't want to go to either place, cause guaranteed it's gonna be full of nut cases.

Whatever the answer is to that question, it would probably not include removing nail clippers from someone with on-board access to a fire axe, taking sandwiches away from an operating pilot, or assigning searchers to grope male pilots' genitals on their way to work.

Get the point?

"assigning searchers to grope male pilots' genitals on their way to work"


If that were standard procedure I doubt this thread would ever have existed..:rolleyes:

So where is the security here:

I work in retail, part time, at a certain London airport, put up with this 'security' theatre every evening and then behind my cash desk, is a pair of scissors?!? Oh dear....:} Combine that with fact I'm only on a temporary pass at the moment!!

Yeah, best way to think about it really..... Security Theatre...
Maybe the only prerequesite is that you have a drama degree?