"".... Every male muslim between the ages of 16 - 60.... ""

How do you determine who is a Muslim - we don't make them wear stars.... Many Muslims have white skin, for example, and are converts. Many Arabs are Christian. Some Muslim women have been suicide bombers. Etc. etc. Profiling, as noted frequently, does seem the way to go - and discreetly I think it's already occurring. The US authorities, for example, are already doing this for many British citizens, especially of Pakistani origin, who can enter the US via the visa waiver scheme. (The visa waiver scheme scares the hell out of the Americans - we should not think it's sacrosanct.)

Alex, Ron and Edna.

OK. For the record I'm 100% with you on liquids, tweezers, Leathermans (men?), packed lunches, stroppy attitudes, surly and over assertive security employees, shoe removal, queues, scissors, toothpaste etc etc.

All I am saying is that there IS a need to pass through 'security' to screen out proxy's or impersonaters.

Incidentally the proxy bomber tactic was used in NI quite effectively. And for sure the drivers were pleased to be challenged, as they always were, thus giving them a chance to 'fess up (and run).

The point of my orig post, which you seem determined to miss, is that only a cursory encounter with 'security' is required to achieve this aim.

But that cursory check IS required. The rest is not.

Golf Charlie Charlie: A fair point, but you see the line I'm taking. Do what they like with pax but it can't be that difficult to impliment more stringent religious/background checks for crew only combined with Ron & Edna Johns comments about a universally regonised crew pass.

Why can't we use fingerprint/iris technology for pilots and crew, they can never be copied. This way every time I pass through security it will take 10 secs and I should be allowed to take whatever I like (within reason) when I go to work without stripping down and having bags swabbed, water stolen etc etc

Aren’t we going of topic this is about crew not passengers if the crew member is a Muslim intent on doing harm then no amount of security is going to stop him her. As security could strip them naked and remove their nav bag and shine a torch where the sun doesn’t shine. As he she doesn’t need any of it to do their worst.

That’s what these security threads are about the utter farce that they make crew go through and for what.

Lets take a look at the other side of the door and if a terrorist was going to have a go which some have tried and near got beaten to death by the passengers. The world has changed as have passengers who are not going to sit there whilst some mislead fanatic kills them. Its not like the past when the right attitude was to keep your head down and let things take there course!

Cure for terrorism is there one I’m sure if it wasn’t religion then it would be something else. The big problem we have now is that they are willing to die for their cause and like kamikaze pilots that is very difficult to defend against.

Would security stop a kamikaze Muslim or any other faith pilot NO!

Lawyers now wouldn’t they have a field day if an accident was put down to the crew who had just been given a going over by security which caused them to make a mistake because they were angry at the way they had been treated. Now for you none flyers out there think about it when someone has just pissed you off how easy is it to then make a mistake. For a pilot to make that mistake can have disastrous consequences so do we really want to let this security farce continue until some poor sod drills one into the ground.
.

Ok, brain fade, yes. I accept that. You are quite right and please accept an apology for my shortness. This whole business is making me pretty... short.... these days.

REJ

Watching Sesame Street and The Muppet Show will establish the identity of the most prominent characters very quickly. The only test that doesn't seem to be carried out is the Idiot Test, presumably because most would fail.

And why should the checks for "Security" Staff take any longer? They don't know anything about security. They are shown how to look at a screen and tip out your bag for you while making snide remarks at your expense. And that's just the Flight Crews, both ends of the tube.

If you want to know about security ask the Israelis. Their method (proper profiling) costs money to implement through thorough training but the results are worth it. Teach smart people how humans work, not how machines work and you will see immediate improvements and a much higher success rate.

Annoying the general public achieves nothing positive whatsoever. Apart from derisory comments such as can be found all over pprune on this subject.

Security staff asking for pay rises and going on strike because their working conditions are crap is not the answer. They should ask for better training, then they'd be better qualified and could rightly demand a better salary befitting their level of knowledge.

It's all been said before..............

ron and edna

accepted with thanks.

I agree that the security farce is a severe test of ones sense of humour. Not surprising if patience wearing a bit thin here and there.;)

Business rules - eventually
 

Just a pax speaking here - but one that is living in the US and traveling to Europe quite frequently. And avoiding LHR. I am not flying through London anymore. There are other options almost as cheap and much more convenient. And I bet that I am not the only one to do that. In the long term the airlines will loose business and that might them take actions against this.

brain fade - its not about screening crews it is about humiliating procedure.

If you take the words out of that, you've got it right.

But you don't need to aggressively search, however, to screen out proxies and impersonators.

From my post on Freigh dogs forum:

No one disputes the need for security but clearfinalsno1s coments are correct we are in danger of this becoming mainstay due to the jobs and industry created around it!

A multimillion pound industry has already been created together with government bureaucracies around the world to administer this window dressing to the populus. Dismantling said apparatus of commercial interests and reliquishing powers of state control of the individual, powers that have mulitiplied particularly in the UK and USA under the specious excuse of 'the war on terror', will call for a political volte face. Given that confessing to errors of judgement goes contrary to the very credo of 99% of politicians everywhere, the ongoing level of security harrassment inflicted on legitimate airside workers will continue until such time as the aforementioned groups make it clear that enough is enough.

Its only you Pros at the moment how long before they start chasing the Private Pilot at GA fields. This was seen at Elstree over the weekend



Wasnt aware ID was required for local flights

More overtime, anyone? That's the reason; nothing to do with fighting terrorism.

Going way beyond their powers to demand ID etc etc is officially known as "looking busy", to justify the overtime. Or maybe they got bored and felt like shaking down some rich gits. Both, probably.

The correct response to an illegal demand from SB, Immigration, Police or the neighbourhood busybody is "F**k **f", or for those of a gentler disposition, asking them to explain and prove their authority in law to demand that.

You are not required by law to carry ID to operate an aircraft within the UK, so far as the law is concerned, except possibly your licence (I'm not certain about that). You may need all sorts of documentation so far as the aircraft owner and/or airfield operator is concerned, for commercial, insurance and safety reasons, but that's not the Police's business. And filling in landing cards after a domestic flight is just ludicrous.

I expect the next lucrative weekend out for the lads will be Long Mynd. Tricky lot, these silent but deadly glider pilots; never know where they've been. They don't even file flight plans, can you believe that? What's more, one of 'em was a bit rude when requested, quite politely, to fill out his landing card after landing in a field in Norfolk". The sooner they're all given ASBOs and closed down, the better.......

Keep this to security and the effects on professional flight crew please. If you have concerns over your civil liberties or private flying then use the Jet Blast or Private flying forums as appropriate.

hi sorry for intruding on to your site, i am one the annoying security gaurds at manchester airport, i hope one of the friendlier ones there are some of us honest. most of the security staff at our level will agree with most of the rules been total rubbish but have to keep to them as d.f.t like tokeep an eye on us with thier many cameras.
As proffessional pilots you have a(or should have) more clout with the d.f.t perhaps you could find an answer to why babys bottles are allowed through when tasted by the parents and yet staff are not allowed bottled drinks even when prepared to taste them? also on the liquids testing points there are alot of products (innocent ones) which will a give a positive result when tested we are asked to avoid these things, surely the terrorists could easily enough find out which products these are and simply put there liquid explosives in such packaging. have tried to find out on these points myself but am deemed to unimportant. hope the others on security dont give you too much hassle and believe me most of us also think alot of the rules are stupid, as are the powers that constantly watch over us on c.ct.v

Lets hope youre on North Gate duty tomorrow morning; would make a nice refreshing change.

Man.mong

It’s a shame more of your colleagues aren’t like minded it would make everybody’s life a lot easier. I appreciate you do not set the rules and noises are been made personally I feel it needs a day of action on both sides of the Atlantic.

I’m sorry that you have been tired with the same brush it is unfair, but unfortunately a lot of your colleagues around the country are complete ^%£&£$*^&$&£*&%(&^ and are an affront to aviation safety for reason’s already stated. Politeness cost’s nothing and goes along way to making our life’s easier.

Please carry on the way you are perhaps it will rub off on some of your zealous colleagues.

A funny time was when I forgot to declare a roll on deodorant before going through x ray at North Gate. Then after having my bag frisked I was told in a cocky manner "we'll let you off this time".I said thank you but in my head I was saying "Thank you, have a nice day and please fu£k off!"

cheers symbian unfortunatly though like so many other gaurds who may actually possess a bit of common sense and independent thinking i am looking for another job, the management at manchester will soon be left with drones who will not argue with them,which it seems they want, total overhaul of the management and d.f.t would be a great idea.

Man.mong

You are not the first security person to leave for the same reason’s you obviously are and I wish you the best in your search. I would say tell the management when you do leave the reasons why but I fear they would see it as a feather in their cap rather then be concerned that they are upsetting so many people needlessly! But then it just shows apart from individuals such as your self what cretins we up against!

One Criminal records check

One Universally recognised standard airside pass based on records check, verified by current employer

One Fingerprint AND Iris scan, encoded onto pass, absolutely unique!

Once this is in place a visit to security should take no more than 10 secs as they will know exactly who we are and should remove the need for these ridiculous rules.

In Canada, we have recently adopted this strategy and it was a VERY welcome change.

First a scanner reads your security card, then most security points use the fingerprint scan to confirm who you are. Takes 10 seconds and you are through the door without any further checks.

Hi All,

Im a guard at Bristol (for my sins) and Im fed up with the liquid restrictions as much as you guys. In some respects, these measures should remain for passengers and perhaps some airport staff, but I don't see the point in such restrictions being imposed on aircrew. Unfortunately DfT don't take much notice of any feedback!

I dont know too much about the new testing process (as I seldom work in the passenger search comb) but I think the ratio is something like 1/100 (pointless). If this has already been mentioned, then excuse me, havent read ALL of the posts on this thread.

Security staff to be searched when entering the RZ? We are. Or at least in the UK we are.

As for a universally recognised pass, I wish! It would certainly make sense for aircrew, however I wish there was just one DfT standard RZ for airport staff in the UK. Might happen one day, if they ever decide to spend some time looking at REAL measures to make security screening effective.

Going back to the signs regarding being "nice" to the security guards, they don't exactly help themselves. I recently had a particularly long 4 sector day out of a certain Southern UK airport and some of the crew had bought sandwiches and snacks due to the not so appetising crew food. Low and behold, security decided these were far to dangerous due to mayonaisse dressings etc. and they were promptly confiscated. As we were waiting for the security hall doors to close, I received a phone call from ops asking us to return to the crew room due to a delay. We nipped back in the doors and were gobsmacked to find the guys and girls in security happily tucking in to OUR lunch! (Guess what dressing I'm using in my sandwiches next time!) Then they wonder why we've all had enough! They seem to use the rules to suit themselves. :*

Girtbar, I think this link takes you to the petition you have set up on the Number 10 website.
OK guys & girls, providing Danny etc don't mind this being posted here then let's all get signing and see if we can make a difference. It took me about 30 seconds so nothing to lose and just maybe we can go back to more sensible security again.
:O
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/airside/

From the Irish Times:

Aircraft security regulations to be maintained in spite of doubts

Jamie Smyth

European Diary: Security measures introduced at European airports in November 2006 in the wake of a foiled plot to blow up British aircraft with liquid explosives came under the spotlight at the European Parliament last week.

The Liberal Group held a public hearing on regulation 1546, which restricts passengers to carrying a maximum of one litre of liquids, gels and pastes in separate 100ml amounts onto aircraft.

The EU chose not to annul the regulation yesterday following its first six-month review of the measure, citing a "continued risk posed by liquid explosives".

Yet at last week's hearing, scientists, MEPs and the airline industry strongly criticised the rules. "Senseless", "idiotic" and an "infringement of fundamental freedoms" were some of the charges laid against the security regulation on liquids by a succession of speakers.

"The threat as well as the technology exists, but the measures are neither effective nor proportionate and pose a considerable nuisance to the vast majority of passengers," said Liberal MEP Ignasi Guardans, who co-chaired the public hearing.

"Extra security measures need to focus not on inanimate objects but on people," said Christophe Naudin, director of international security at the University of Paris II, who demonstrated his hypothesis by smuggling a detonator for a bomb and explosive liquids past the parliament's security staff.

"You can make explosive devices with two solids or with liquids of less than 100ml . . . these measures have not enhanced security, rather they are more to give passengers the feeling that flying is safe."

Carol Van Eijk, professor of physics at Delft University, revealed how the X-ray scanners used at airports cannot tell the difference between explosives and aftershave.

"Identification of liquid explosives is very difficult to do and none of the present methods can do the job in a fast and efficient way that is needed at airports," he said.

Despite these limitations, an EU committee of experts on aviation security decided at a recent meeting that the restrictions should remain.

The committee, which is made up of experts from all 27 member states, must review the regulation every six months to assess whether it is still appropriate. It meets in secret and does not have to make public the justification for imposing or retaining a particular measure. This process, known as comitology, is commonly used to enact a raft of regulations that become law in the EU.

MEPs can express an opinion on the regulations, which are decided in consultation with the European Commission, but cannot amend them.

Several MEPs at the hearing said this secretive procedure meant there was little public scrutiny of regulation 1546 before it was adopted into European law.

The commission and EU states deny this. "MEPs can give an opinion on the regulation and if some didn't read it that is not our fault," said a commission official, who admitted the liquids rules are "imperfect", but are the best possible response.

Meanwhile, the EU committee of experts has loosened the regulation somewhat.

"We think the ban on liquids is necessary," the Swedish member of the committee told The Irish Times. "But a separate proposal to restrict and harmonise rules on the size of hand luggage has been delayed for a year to see if it has any security benefit."

Under the regulation the EU had planned to set the size of hand luggage to a maximum of 56x45x25cm later this month. But fierce lobbying by the industry, which feared travel chaos, helped persuade the EU experts to postpone the measure.

"The problem would have been transfer passengers coming from outside the EU," says Frank O'Connell, president of the European Travel Retail Council. "They would arrive at EU airports with bags that simply didn't meet the EU regulations."

O'Connell, who is also director of Aer Rianta Retail, has witnessed similar chaos caused by the implementation of the liquid restrictions for transfer passengers from outside Europe. Every day 2,500 litres of duty free are confiscated at Frankfurt airport from non-EU transfer passengers because the regulation does not recognise security procedures outside the EU. Meanwhile tit-for-tat rules introduced by Australia now mean that EU passengers have their duty-free goods confiscated upon arrival there. "The rules are causing a huge level of uncertainty for passengers and causing a chill in the duty-free business," says O'Connell.

Aer Rianta's reliance on duty free (it also operates shops in Russia, the US and the Middle East) was the reason the Republic voted against the regulation. Two other countries abstained in the crucial vote, which has never been made public.

But the sceptical evidence presented by experts at the hearing last week suggests it may be time for a proper debate about regulation 1546, and also how to open up the comitology procedure to more scrutiny to boost public accountability.

You were gobsmaked. Okay, that was an initial reaction. What did you do next?


I was going to say that it's easy for me to sit here and say what should be done....but it isn't. I get as mad as hell just reading this stuff. I can put my hand on my heart and say that firstly, those thieving bastards would not have got my food. Secondly, if I had come into the loop and seen them eating YOUR food, I would have caused mayhem. On a good day I would have called the police, on a bad day I would no doubt have got into a lot of trouble...but it would have been trouble that I was willing to see through to the end, be it high court or whatever.

You (all) have to DO something other than let off steam. As I said earlier, the airlines are not doing enough to stop this madness, so they must bear some of the cost of a protest.

It has to be at least a nation-wide effort. To be fair, you should give warning of the day on which this @#% is going to stop. I am bewildered by the ineffectual, meandering time-wasting by the unions and government bodies. Just what the blazes are they paid for?




Quote "I shall be taking essentials of course. Water and......." Emelia Earhart.

Talking as a guard, I think thats ridiculous and you wouldnt catch me eating/using confiscated items (Id say that goes for many of my colleagues where I work, certainly those at Crew Search).

Did you not put in a complaint?

ATCO1987 and Loose rivets,

I can assure you I put in complaints to the supervisor on duty, the dft, anyone else I could think of and informed the airline I work for. And guess what. They apparently "take this sort of thing very seriously and will investigate the incident fully"! Yeah, right! I have since heard that this is not an isolated incident here and although I appreciate that it is probably, or hopefully, a minority of idiots that do this sort of thing, that minority is, as is so usually the case, making life a nightmare for their colleagues as well as the rest of us. I wish I'd given them more hell at the time but can only say I was so amazed that anyone could do that, I was left temporarily speechless! Probably a good thing in hindsight! :sad:

Hopefully you're right about it only being a minority, but you're right, its them that ruins it for the rest of us.

Gotta say that this is an absolute load of !!!!!. For one thing, aircrew have many more useful tools at their disposal, what is 100ml+ of liquid going to do? Apologies if this point has been brought up, but I couldn't be bothered wading through pages of posts on a point which annoys the buggery out of me

It bothers me that this discussion is seeking to create a caste system between flight crew (pilots) and the greater masses of the unwashed.

There are some good arguments about bonafide card carrying pilots being low risk, But I must remind you that there are equally good arguments about a much larger percentage of the general population being equally low risk. The more that the small population of pilots push for their own sphere of declaring themselves low risk, the more that the much larger population of the general public are going to rebel against one group being declared more clean than themselves. I would much more be inclined to support a petition to either lower the overall security visible inconvenience for all or at least demonstrate that the relief is not exclusive of a larger majority of low risk individuals.

lomapaseo

I think you may be missing the point that it doesn't matter if a pilot is high or low risk; if he or she is about to take control of an aircraft, because that's what's on the roster, there's no point in searching him/her for weapons or means of suicidal destruction.

No Speed Restriction I thought you would have learned your lesson by now! You know how dangerous a roll on deodorant can be!

What is the world coming to. :)

I am not nor have ever been associated with airplanes, except as a passenger, but am a regular reader of pprune and have read of the problems that you all are having with "SECURITY"

I have added my name to the email petition above to express my disgust with your treatment.

Let us hope that someone listens and that enough people like myself lend their weight to the petition

Peter

Petition
 

Girtbar, I think this link takes you to the petition you have set up on the Number 10 website.
OK guys & girls, providing Danny etc don't mind this being posted here then let's all get signing and see if we can make a difference. It took me about 30 seconds so nothing to lose and just maybe we can go back to more sensible security again.:hmm:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/airside/

Have just been on site to add my two pence to the debate to note that only 9 (nine) people appear to have signed.
If I mis read it I apologise but if right this only goes to show what a bunch of old whingers we are if we can't even make the effort to change this farce which we moan about and can't be bothered to fight.
What was the old saying: Don't complain about the government if you didn't bother to vote. You get what you deserve.
Surely we deserve better than the staus quo (which will only get worse):hmm:

We are almost where the authorities want us now! The more stringent checks are here and not too much fuss has been kicked up. Right, what do you do next, make them tougher, get people more stressed, so stressed until they unite and say no, we have had enough of this. Then offer a solution. An easy solution. Some form of electronic identification, either retinal or by fingerprints. Tie this information in with your CRC. Sit quiz where you answer a few simple questions where you can be profiled and their you have it, FEAR AND CONTROL!

Once all that good info has been gathered on you, screening will be a doddle, just walk up and pass through. The rest of the mass will be asking how come you got through and they are producing a urine sample to check for ingested combustible fluids. The answer will be an application form for full human profiling and their you have it, ID card's through the back door!

Just smile next time you are having your meat n two veg caressed and think, at least you have not been assimilated to the Borg!

Lost in Saigon:
I hope it's a better system than this one: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04...int_merc_chop/ and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/4396831.stm

Mythbusters also defeated a number of fingerprint security locks fairly easily.

llondel
 

In my opinion and only my opinion, it is not about safety, it is about getting detailed information of all of us, to be used to a lesser or greater extent by what authority is holding the information. The technology is out their to electronically record every person to a level that would be incredibly hard to duplicate. The second inspection would be the human interface, to just take a sample visual inspection. The old mark one eyes are generally very good at spotting things.
The vote is still out on how much the US authorities knew about 9/11 prior to it actually happening. When money and oil are in the equation, honesty and trust go out the window. Would the suffragette movement had the effect on todays times, if all the activists had been profiled and all their personal information been held by the state? We would all be still in the grafting in the mill house if union activists had to provide a retinal scan before logging into the sweat shop!
Still, it is mighty annoying in the morning getting caught behind a couple of crews getting all their kit checked when I am already late!!!
Another annoying thing is, that at LGW, all people passing though the security gates and Concorde House have to remove their shoes, to allow central search and the staff route by it, to only have a percentage of people remove their shoes! If you search 100% of staff through all other screening areas, you do not have to search as many passengers going through central search, and the route that most managers use to get airside!
The worlds gone mad!

I'm not at all worried about the pilot's susicidal leanings. The greater risk, minimal as it may be, is that the pilot will subcomb to girl friend pressure and take through some lotion for her travel use when I can not. Then of course it later turns out that the girl friend intends to use the lotion for nefarious purposes, against another flight so we all lose.

OK so I admit, I'm not going to win any arguments on this board, but neither will the pilot community prevail in front of the media or the public unless they act in concert.