Wefeedumall, Thanks for that....

Everybody reading this please sign below!

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

Guys, this important petition is for UK residents only. International pilots such as me are affected by this insanity when flying to/from the UK also, albeit not on a daily basis like you guys. Accordingly, anyone know how we can sign this petition also? Thanks.


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

Jetset Lady,

PLEASE put a CHIRP report in, detailing how you felt stressed whilst reporting for duty, having seen your lunch being stolen.:=
Unbelievable!!

FB

Jay Arr,

Just a minor correction. Not just UK residents but non resident, UK citizens as well may sign these petitions.

JetSet Lady, sorry to be crude about it but get your boyfriend to provide the dressing next time.
If the security staff have to abide by the same rules as we do then how come I see them drinking Lucozade, Cola, fruit drinks from cardboard cartons etc? They most certainly do not have the same restrictions as we aircrew, in spite of what some security posters might be telling us. The rules may be the same but the observance most certainly is not.
I have come to the conclusion that the whole thing is now a farce of nonsensical proportions and no-one in a position of authority has the guts to question it. It is the Emporers' new clothes all over again.
btw, could whoever posted the on line Gov't petition correct the spelling for 'carrying', please?

As the security people checking us all are so concerned about explosives, what protection is provided for them in the event that a suicide bomber masquerading as a member of staff decides to blow himself/herself up at the security check-point?

Surely the authorities must provide protective barriers (bombproof) at the least, to protect their staff and the innocent pilots/cabin crew/staff who are going through the checks at the time.

If the threat is serious, it does not stop at detection.

International ID
 

Exellent idea! But who pays? Half the aircrew on lo-cost's have no airport id because they won't pay the £80 to £100, so I don't suppose they will want to pay for more expensive bio-metric versions.

Roy,
Don`t think they are concerned with a detection. Went through Manch last week. One of the CC stopped, had forgotten to put a roll on deodourant in a plastic bag with other stuff. (Hands up and apologised). But then she wasn`t allowed to put it in the plastic bag with her other stuff in the security area. She would have to leave the area and then come back once it was done.
So if she had have been carry something to endanger us she could have then got rid of it outside the security area.:ugh:
Then when she came back through she was subjected to a test of the contents of the plastic back with their new testing kit. Not a very scientific way of testing especially when the security guard knocks the testing strip upside down onto a table during the test.:D
:ok:

That's definitely inconsistent with other airports then, based on the two clueless individuals in front of me at Stansted last week who had nothing in plastic bags but were allowed to search through their hand luggage and find everything, hand it to the security man who put it all (after checking the quoted volume on ech item) in a plastic bag he took from the supply on top of the x-ray machine. But then they weren't wearing flight uniforms...

Did ask what he was testing for?
"Explosives"
"Yes but what sort?"
"Explosives!"
He then refered me to the manual next to his "exstensive testing kit" pointing at various pages.:rolleyes:
Perhaps some training may be required if security staff are to be asked to undertake these tasks.
Gave up trying to argue....our passengers were delayed enough as it is.

IF I was a terrorist
 

IF I was even the dimmest of terrorists, I would know exactly what happens at a security gate in any airport.
So, I would bring nothing suspicious with me in order to gain entry as aircrew, provided I had some uniform, forged ID or other.
Therefore I ask, what in the name of terrorism - searching any aircrew - is any use to the "idiots at security"?
The whole point is that I, the genuine aircrew have control ALREADY, as soon as you let me through.
An idiot terrorist has a more difficult job to take my seat at this moment of getting through. He has no crew, no aircraft and so has to do something drastic to gain control. That may well be spotted even by a cleaner. How many loose terrorists have we seen so far??? Zilch.
So back at the security gate, why give me a hard time if you're going to let me through anyway, even after you take my semtex sandwich away? Remember I have control as soon as you allow me in, with suicidal tendencies I wouldn't even be hungry!
So why on earth couldn't I be allowed to bring a b****y couldron of sloppy Goulash with me, as all it's gonna help me do, is fart!
LET AIRCREW GO! (yes I signed it).

From boing-boing
 

BoingBoing reader and Citizen Security Analyst jesse says,

Security restrictions are essential to safe travel
 

Ther are very valid reasons to have restrictions on flights in todays world. If there was to be a terrorist attack with liquid bombs the airline industry would suffer greatly, ALot of airlines would go bankrupt as public confidence would suffer and people would not fly unless completely essential to do so, like what happened post 9 - 11.

The information below is an actual incident that happened. The liquid was hid in a drinking water bottle. A mini explosion is enough to cause decompression of an aircraft resulting in a catastrofic losses.

security is a nesessary evil in todays civil aiation world. It is something that is there to protect us all from suffering another 9 - 11. May be we should all think twice before we patition any authority!

On December 11, 1994, Flight 434 was on its second leg from Cebu to Tokyo when a bomb exploded, killing one passenger. Authorities later discovered that a passenger on the aircraft’s preceding leg was Ramzi Yousef, who United States authorities have branded a master Al-Qaida bomber and terrorist. He was later convicted of the first World Trade Center bombing, for which he was sentanced to death by lethal injection. Yousef boarded the flight under an assumed name…

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.

The Ters have won
 

They've just achieved their goal my causing pure unadulterated mayhem to all and sundry in the air transport industry. Goal achieved I would say, 'tis about time there were some real security applications applied, not just using numptys. Have some real humint applied.

Win
 

Yep; They've won! look how easy it is to get your back up. Not to mention the reaction to security..

What BAA are telling Politicians/DfT
 

You should know that BAA (bless them) are telling the politicos that some of the airport delays are due to the "bad behaviour" of Flight and Cabin crew. Don't you just love them?

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

It's in the Op Order............
 

As the security people checking us all are so concerned about explosives, what protection is provided for them in the event that a suicide bomber masquerading as a member of staff decides to blow himself/herself up at the security check-point?


Actually that is Exactly what is happening in Iraq, no need to go through security, just blow up in front of it. And still the authorities blindly plod on..................................:ugh:

it´s very easy, they want war, give them war: get to security and start dropping all your liquids into the counter, tooth paste, cologne, deodorant, listerine... after 20-30 guys doing the same I dont´think they will try it agian, do it daily, everybody. I am f.... tyred of stupid politicos that no nothing about security.

I am paying cargo, and always hate flying through Heathrow, I have never meet a bunch of job worths in my life. I totally disagree with the only one bag policy, especially when you have your overnight gear, in case your luggage gets lost, and a laptop. There is no reason why you shouldn't be able to take two bags! If they think it is conjestion at the screening points, then how about they put more staff on. The stupid thing is that a handbag is often considered an extra bag. Security at heathrow annoy the hell out of me, mainly cause see heaps of other people having problems getting through as well, and yet they don't offer any help.

On time, I was going through heathrow, and noticed that there was a big pair of dress maker scissors sitting on a bench at a retailers. Had brought it up with security, and their response was, we have got no control over the retailers, only to say that he would ask the retailer to make sure that they aren't on the bench.

Now, my question was this. What would have happened if the scissors had gone missing. I bet that if they did go missing, no one would have brought up the fact that they were missing. Somehow don't think they would have shut down heathrow that is for sure, which is what they should have done. A good thing though is that the terrorists we are dealing with aren't the most clever people in the world.

What shocks me more, is the fact that there is very little checks on identity. I was absolutely shocked on my first trip to the UK, when other than check in, and boarding the aircraft, no other checks were done.

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?