According to the CAA its because of "The reluctance of individuals to declare formally that their ability to operate has been impaired as a result of a security experience"

At least thats how I read CHIRP 87.

Never mind, when we've all gone through the seamless process of getting our National ID cards, all our problems will be solved, honestly...........:O

A & C

Well said, and all those on here that think we can always manage our stress levels, take note.

If anyone thinks it is fine to have cabin crew etc in tears before a flight is fine then shame on you.

I dearly hope these security issues do not lead to an accident of the magnitude of the Trident crash, but that is why CHIRP and other programs were set up to monitor and control these type of incidents. It is because the human stress response mechanism is rather complex and despite the individual believing that he/she is in control only to find out when a further incident occured that he/she was not. A recent incident where a pilot passed out for a few seconds after a series of stress making incidents, proves that as does the crash refered to above.

Let us not forget the lessons that we learned years ago.

By "formally" they presumably mean on-the-record with names attached and published, as opposed to through a third party who maintains confidentiality.

One would have thought that such reluctance to go on the record about the security setup woud in itself indicate a problem (ie. what would they be afraid of - harrassment from security?, ok, so why are flight crew afraid of harrassment from security...).

infrequentflyer789
 

I refer you to the part of my post about the airport security management's ability to take away an airside pass without giving any reason.

I expect you could challenge that decision in court but would you still have a job by the time you won the case? (or more likely the security section submitted on the steps of the court).

Unlike the Police airport security make up the rules, judge the way they are enforced and have made sure that there is no robust system to deal with complaints.

The fact of the matter is that it is an industry riding the crest of a wave, large amounts of money are changing hands to provide a service that is carried out by the lowest paid in society, there is little wonder that they envy the other airport workers and sometimes act out of malice and spite.

It s hardly any wonder that the security management are ramping up the "security paranoia" and at the same time keeing a very low profile when it comes to the way they treat other airline staff.

Thanks for the interesting points of view.. I can only repeat that the majority of us do not treat the air crews as the enemy within...we seem to agree that air crews (and indeed ground staff) should have some relaxation of the rules applied after 2 years of this liquids, gels, 100ml maximum size container issue...As regards the "red bull" incident, may I just repeat that the camera is always there to be played back to support any case that may be instigated regarding theft.
It is obvious to us (and my own section do actually ask the pilots and aircrews) that different rules appear to apply to each UK airport.. as was mentioned, this can only be caused by the different managements at each location applying their own "little bit extra" on top of DFT rulings.
To ground staff who turn up at a particular airport each day for work, there would be every likelihood that they may not know that different security rules apply at each different airport. Aircrews obviously get around and to that end they will obviously feel more aggrieved that they are made to comply to one set of rules at LGW, another at LHR, MAN and so on.
I do have some knowledge of the airline industry as my son is now a RAF GR9 Harrier pilot just completing his 2nd Afghan tour.... to that end I have been "dragged" around airports and aircraft since he was in junior school so he could view the aircraft, etc... the pilots amongst you were probably exactly the same from a young age. Thank you for your time, perhaps one day sanity will again prevail as regards security measures and just as importantly, the attitudes between staff.

As a matter of interest, your station managers should have an up to date copy of what is allowed and what is not through the search area as dictated by DFT. You are allowed to view this.
If they do not have one then they should approach the Airport Security Manager and ask for one and to be put on the list for updates....
Hope that helps a little. Oh and yes, the list is the same for all airports.

I agree with much of what has been said so far. Its the way the rules differ everywhere you go that is the main annoying point.

Here is a positive and constructive suggestion.

The DfT (or whoever is responsible for airport security these days) should draw up a nice A4 booklet which lists the specific requirements for security checks. As in, what you can take, what you can't. What bags you can use, what you can't. Whether you should have to take your shoes and belt off every time. Or not. This document should be distributed to all CAA professional licence holders and cabin crew (or airport ID holders) and also to every UK airport authority, where it should be available at every security point as the National Airport Security Guidelines for Crew Security Checks. This way, everyone knows the rules, they are used in the same way at every UK airport and anyone (security or crew) trying to get round the rules can see what the rules are in black and white.

I agree that it is stressful and time consuming to go through security these days, particularly if away for a few days and taking hand luggage through security with you. It seems that if you have your little plastic bag correct then your suitcase won't get searched, so you put whatever else you like in there :E Of course, that would be completely against all security requirements and I would never flout the rules in that way.

Also, for pilots, come on guys, there is a time in every flight where there is only one pilot on the flight deck, we all know it ain't difficult to fly the thing into the ground if you really wanted to - you wouldn't need the help of an extra 50ml of toothpaste.....

The most ridiculous thing of this whole scenario is that down route you don't get anything like the same check. So you arrive, leave the aircraft, pop into the terminal, buy whatever you like, return to your aircraft with oooh, maybe 200ml of toothpaste (whatever next!!!). And no one knows or cares.

In Greece for example, it is possible to go through security with barely a glance, carrying whatever you like (and yes, this is wrong too). This does make crew a bit weary when it comes to dealing with UK security.

I actually had a mini-mag light, of all things, removed from my flight case by security on the grounds that it could be used as a potential weapon, or go to the desk and send it through as checked luggage.


in the airside outlets, they were available for purchase!

Cancel the flight due to lack of safety equipment quote the applicable air navigation order

There's NO security!
 

There's no security, only a perception that there is one!
The more staff, pilots and workers THEY pi$$ off, the more it SEEMS there is security being dished out.
The security "guards" can't see in a person's head, that's where terrorism is!
Come on ICTS, we've all seen the TV programme, you are a disgusting/bad lot!
Forget it.


moist :ugh: :{ :ugh:

CHIRP - An Alternative Suggestion
 

I believe that Chirp started with the best of intentions but now it it is suffering a slow death as confidence erodes with each issue and susequent comical resolutions to the problems posed.

C - Completely
H - Hopeless
I - In
R - Resolving
P - Problems

IJustPhixem
 

Hardly a constructive contribution to the debate to slag off the one part of the avitation establishment that is trying to do something about this problem.

Please come back when you have a better idea. Have you done anything constructive about this like Write to your MP or get the union working for you?

DaveyG....you said may I please justify what we do with the simple words..."We operate in the UK under the rules that the Dept for Transport set out". in a previous post;

then you went on to say It is obvious to us (and my own section do actually ask the pilots and aircrews) that different rules appear to apply to each UK airport.. as was mentioned, this can only be caused by the different managements at each location applying their own "little bit extra" on top of DFT rulings.

I think you are missing the fundemental problem this contradiction causes.

Crews are frustrated, annoyed (and even driven to calling security people "nobs") because of the massive inconsistancies. We are constantly told "oh thats the dft rules, mate...." but yet we know that the particular rule doesn't exist at another airport. Basically the system is being administered very very badly. It is causing frustration for crews and they can clearly see there is no added security value to it. Let me give you some examples

1. you said everyone is security checked. WRONG. armed police officers walk through at a certain uk airport. they do not disarm. they set off the scanner. they do not take their hat off. they go airside.

2. engineers bring through every imaginable cutting and slicing tool. also, i can walk into our engineering office and get any of these tools. i cannot bring a kitchen knife through. neither can an engineer!

3. a refueller (truck driver) cannot bring a can of coke through security. this is presumably because a coke can is more than 100ml and of course it may be explosive. after having his coke confiscated he gets back into the truck with 80 tons of explosive jet fuel and goes airside (with his 20 marlboro and a LIGHTER on the dashboard)

4. while the pilot is having his 10ml of water confiscated because it's in a bottle that is 250ml in size; the next person through security is an 18 year old contractor from a temp agency, who has got a job stocking shelves in Boots, and he's loading cases of 1L bottles of evian onto the scanner.....which the pilot can now go to boots and buy.

DaveG...you contribution is welcome and honorable. But I think you are missing the fundemental flaws in the system.

Well done to the person who said that using stress/flight safety as a reson to change security procedures is the wrong way to go. It really will distract from the core issue. Which is
1/security procedures are not effective. there are too many massive loopholes, and unessecery energy is being spent on confiscating toothpaste from cabin crew
2/some security staff are rude to airline staff, however, there is no quality procedures in place to monitor their performance (only a reactionary system when there is a complaint)

thx if your still reading....phew!

Bomber
 

A lot of very interesting points all well made however stress is one of the reasons that the improvements that you suggest should be implemented.

At the moment "security" is a big thing and the government is seeking all sorts of new powers to deal with the situation , unfortunately most of these are about as well drafted as the Dangerous Dogs Act. It is time that the security procedures were formalised and a robust national standard was set, we can no longer has individual airports making up local rules. This would change would remove 99% of the stress from flight crews as they would know the rules as they would be the same country wide.


The reason that a lot of the problems go unresolved is that there is no robust and independent system for resolving problems (the security industry sees this as an aditional cost). If an independent body existed then airport employees would not have to turn to CHRIP to seek some sort of redress.
It is quite clear that complaint to "security" is likely to result in the removal of the airside pass if not over the actual incident they are likely to "mark your card" and cook something up in the future. (this is not the policy of security management but the thinking of the small minded at the sharp end and the likely outcome of a security dispute).

So the bottom line is that a senior airline captain as the result of a minor dispute can have his airside pass and therefore his job taken away by the actions of a bottom grade security operative without any reference to a complaints procedure short of taking the airport authority to court.

Under these circumstances is it not surprising that people are stressed each time some people are checked by security after all an item that they are carrying my well not be banned at there base airport and the resulting dispute may cost them the job.

In my opinion by not taking action to deal with the stresses highlighted in the CHIRP reports the CAA is guilty of gross neglect of its duty of care to the traveling public and the people that it issues licences to. I wonder if the "Flying Lawyer" might like to comment on the validity of my opinion and if the airport workers unions could take a joint action to force the CAA to take a more active role in this area of standardisation of security controls with the aim of reducing the stress levels at work an most important improving flight safety.

I have to return to my first post on this thread and draw your attention to that part that stress played in the BEA Trident accident, the responsibility for reducing a well documented source of stress on crews should fall at the feet of the CAA, a responsibility that they don't seem capable of taking.

On a brighter note, I know of several pilots who have had recent arguments with security staff. None have had their passes removed. In at least one case, the security staff management reviewed the incident and sacked the security staff member involved. Keep cool and the system will work... probably!
A few weeks ago I packed a carryon for a trip, instead of the usual hold bag. Stupidly I just transferred everything over, and forgot a 200ml bottle of sunscreen was in the pile with everything else.
When it was picked up at security, I apologised and handed it over for confiscation- only to have it returned, and the security staff arrange for it to be put into hold baggage for me! Quite correctly, they insisted the bottle could not travel in the cabin; however, they could not have been more pleasant about it. Thanks guys!

I ALWAYS take my drinks, shampoo, deo etc. with me in and have never been asked to remove them, not at any continental airport.
Only in the UK do they not follow common sense.

Apologies if it has been raised before:

Years gone by I used to carry a letterman or large Swiss penknife in my flight bag. I could take many things apart; not always put them back together again. However, en-route or on the ground in some out of the way place I have been able to effect repairs to simple things. No longer possible. But then I saw an engineer in the flight deck with a letterman. He told me he was allowed by security to bring it through as it was part of his necessary tool kit to do his job. I tried this argument at security and 'the jobs worth' said no way. Who's he to say what is necessary for me to do my job or not?

rigpig: Hah! i like your thinking :ok:

the thing was he clearly wanted to have it but could be bothered to pay for one himself. as soon as my bag was opened and he clapped his eyes on it my fellow crew member said in my ear "that's gone"..

the result was i did a 180, went out side and cracked it on the kerbside, went back and handed it to him.. he was a little disappointed.

the point is, and i think we are all making the same point here, there is no ryhme or reason to the vagaries of what is and what isnt acceptable.

the claims of safety etc are frankly B/S.. there is enough available in airside shoppng to creat a whole host of impliments.

The Eithiopian Airlines 757 that went in off the comoros islands was hijacked by two parties who used a broken bottle of JD, purchased from Duty Free.

A and C . Are you still getting the old turnips tickled on a regular basis?
You used to enjoy it at Stansted.:ok:
I thought youd had the knacker reduction op on the new private health contract.
I bet you wont mind them getting a fondle in Phuket:ooh:

Tout alors, mange tout , viva l'airboos.

I stand to be corrected here, but on re-reading CHIRP Issue 87 and then re-reading a number of items on this thread, some things do not tie up. Engineer CHIRP Reports 12 months to June 2008 equal first with Maintenance CHIRP Issues received were 10 Security Issues. Flight Deck Crew Reports received for the same period had 61 Security Issues, 2nd only to Duty.
So we have a combined total of 71 Security Issues for the 12 months from June 2007. None from ATC, interesting that ATC are not uniformed. Is there a connection?
The CAA has encouraged us to use CHIRP. The chap who deals with the Engineering Issues has always said that he wanted more input from the Engineers. Now, he is getting it, in all areas as well as Security. There has not been an issue with Flight Deck Crews raising CHIRP as doing so is a more culturally accepted thing to do.
What concerns me is that now the issue of security has been identified and CHIRP acknowledges this, why in the heck aren't they now going to do something with the information they have?
There is more at stake here than having a neanderthal fondle you, or will the CAA/CHIRP etc not take the required steps until an incident occurs where Security is identified as a contributory factor.
I would suggest that this is an ideal opportunity for CHIRP/CAA to be seen to be addressing what is in essence a very serious problem. I would aslo suggest that unless CHIRP/CAA are seen to act here, the credibility of said organisations may suffer as a result of their innactivity and willingness to support the 71 people who have submitted CHIRP on Security in the last 12 months.
OK if the CAA wants MOR whenever a Security Issue arises, I have no issues whatsoever in submitting one. I would suggest that as the CAA has marked their stalll as to what they want to see before they consider taking action, then raising MOR is what should be done. My concern is that I do not have the faith as yet that when the CAA do receive MOR related to Security Issues, they will yet gain try to wriggle of the hook as they have done with their response in CHIRP 87.
We have very few areas where we can go for help. support and guidance and it would appear that when we do provide the information, the people who should be doing something about it have developed sloping shoulders.

Shame on you and I hope that you never have to rue the day that you took the course of action that you have adopted on this subject.

Gets of soap box and vanishes into obscurity in the crowd

Temps

Authority is generally doing what they are told to do
 

One major lesson I learnt when I left UK shores over 30 years ago is that authority generally does what it is told to do.

I have since travelled personally at least 0.5M miles with many many airport checks.

The most agressive comment I think I ever had was "you have an Iraqi visa, you may wish to ask for a new passport". That was in Germany. I since used the same passport for 7 years including 2 trips to Israel.

CarltonBrown

Unfortunately it is not the actual threat of removal of passes, but the perception of the crew that this might happen, or that security might be even more aggressive (at the time or in future) if we say anything that causes stress. I have had security at one UK airport become more aggressive as I questioned that they would not allow me to take something not on their banned list (handling agent only handed it straight to me airside anyway).

Sorry to return to some early themes, but I'm late to the thread and I think these points have been missed.

First P. Pilcher

Could your daughter not have handed over the perfume then arrested the security guard for theft?

The security guard has no right to confiscate liquids correctly held in containers smaller than 100 ml. He has taken it with intent permanently to deprive your daughter of her property. That is theft.

Dunhovrin

I don't know which airport you go through, but I can tell it's only the one. I regularly visit many airports and I can state categorically that "[The Rules] may be fair or not but they are blanket rules" is complete and utter nonsense. See P.Pilcher's experience.

The rules are applied with more sanity and more evenly in most of Europe than they are in Britain. Having just had my security refresher I learn that this is because it is only in Britain that they are administered by contractors on minimum wage. Incidentally my instructor for that refresher, a professional who advises airports on security, was highly critical of the way the rules are implemented in the UK, and of the CAA in reference to the CHIRP articles.

In Britain the security varies immensely. There are no blanket rules, at least in practice. I have been refused permission to carry items not on the disallowed list right in front of us. I have been told I couldn't take a flask, until the handler told security it was for the passengers, when it was suddenly OK. I have had water confiscated before a 3-hour plus flight, leaving me with nothing to drink. I have had a security woman tell me I didn't need a leatherman because I wasn't an engineer. Some places I can walk right on with the catering, other places it goes over a conveyor belt and is just given back to me airside. Other places it has to be delivered to the aircraft. Some places have a separate crew channel, others I go through a passenger scrum. Some places I can be airside alone, some places only with the handling agent. Some places my passengers must have boarding cards, some places handling agents can take them through, other places I can take them through security.

Blanket rules they are not.

Have you actually read the reports in CHIRP? I think the reports are far worse than you imagine. Many people are being bullied by little men given power. Several people have been sexually assaulted, one retiring early solely due to such an attack. If that happens to me my flight ain't going anywhere, because I am calling the police and pressing charges.

In the end that is all that can be done because there is no coherent feedback system. There is no way to complain and get any response other than further hassle in the future, as these people continue to abuse their power. That is not only damaging to flight safety it is damaging to security, so even on your criteria it must be addressed.

Have any airlines altered crew report times to reflect the time consuming extra hassles associated with donning and doffing of shoes, removing and repacking of lap tops, mobile phones etc etc?

If not, then reduced time available at the aircraft for pre flight checks could well be called detrimental to flight safety or cause significant delays to departures - imho.

A glimmer of hope?

Just read that the new Head of the CAA is a Pilot !!! Hooray :ok:

Capt D Chapman the DfT newsdesk says. Sounds like he could be the chap to bring sanity back to the UK.

Only problem is he doesn't take up his post until nearly the end of the year by which time it may have been too late.:(

We can but hope.

Sir George Cayley

The thing that makes me laugh about airport security (certainly at Birmingham where I fly from) is who more closely resembles the profile of the terrorists? me, middle class privately educated white boy, or 'them' (nicknamed The Gestapo) Asian poorly educated, can barely speak English and have to pray 5 times a day? Call me racist, and see if I care.

Almost correct. In fact they have no powers to confiscate anything whether it is above or below 100ml. They can only stop you going into the restricted zone with the prohibited items. They are ordinary citizens. They have no special powers or authority. If they take something from you against your will it is theft.

Just a thought but given that we (the crew) have big problems with security (I never knew how dangerous a pilot's belt could be - I could have hijacked my own aircraft with one! etc etc etc), the stress of passing through security many times and the inconsistencies even in the same airport and even by the same security people etc etc

However my cabin crew are also noticing that they're starting to take abuse from the SLF because the amount of stress that they're put under by security too. I know that service is decreasing and some SLF one or two a flight but it is a minority - most are reasonably well behaved but they are also being affected by airport securities madness.

Just saying, anything that reduced the stress for my crew and that means reducing stress for the SLF too is a good thing; and also for our profits and jobs! So don't forget that the SLF get it just as bad...

fc101
E145 driver

firestorm - with you all the 'racist' way. Interesting that the country that endures successfully, probably the largest continuous terrorist threat, is Israel. Guess what? - they use the profiling technique!!!! We can't do that in blighty because it's a breach of human rights and we must pander at all times to the PC brigade eh?

There's clearly a lot of absurdity going on out there.

I manage a team of scientists who have to regularly work on board large aircraft as part of their work. Normal practice is to search them, then have their assorted (and occasionally sharp or heavy) tools re-issued once they're back on board the aeroplane. It's a nuisance, but sort of works and could readily be applied to commercial flight crew.

On the other hand, a little while ago I had to divert an open cockpit light aeroplane into a big airport - I was wearing an old military flying suit with a large safety knife strapped to my leg. I stopped overnight near the airport then had to go through security on the way back in to fly home in the morning. The knife was casually inspected and allowed through as aircrew equipment, whilst my mobile phone was x-rayed and my transparent map case disassembled. All rather odd and inconsistent.

Frankly, if they'd chosen to take that knife from me, they'd have been well within their rights and apart from trying hard to make arrangements for its eventual return to me, I'd not have put up any fight. On the other hand, exactly what threat was my thin and transparent map case? All very friendly and I was put to no real inconvenience but it's rather absurd.


A couple of other thoughts

(1) Is it not the case that automatic access to an aeroplane by a police offer must be when they are in uniform, and it doesn't apply to somebody in plainclothes?

(2) There's no point in asking Flying Lawyer questions any more. He's now technically "Flying Judge" and not allowed to give any specific legal advice. (He is still around and a very helpful chap, just not allowed to give advice.)

G

Why?
 

Why are crews searched at all?
We all know that a pilot has some tools just next to him in the cockpit to open oil filler caps or so and finally, a pilot has full control of an aircraft at all times, so no tools (weapons) needed at all.

The only thing that the security people do not know is, if the pilot or crew is really the pilot or crew she/he pretends to be.

So, why not give out proper crew ID cards from the authorities, that are valid for all airports and include a specific identifier that cannot be falsified?
Any other (better) way would also do, verify the pilot or crew is who she/he pretends to be and make sure the person is not a fake pilot or crew.

IMHO it would be a good way to go and introduce a Europe wide crew ID, pilots licence or whatsoever that without doubt identifies the crewmember as a true crewmember: Show your crew ID, make sure you are who you pretend to be (ex. give an electronic fingerprint), no further need for security checks on that person, open the doors, work.
No more need for an airport ID at any airport for crews, it's included in your crewmember ID.

A challange? Maybe... Let's talk to our unions and ask them to talk in our name to the politics. Rules can be changed to better rules!

Just out of interest, if one was to freeze a liquid, would that still be in violation of the security edict?

Also, i'm surprised the press haven't picked up on this - the words "hazard to flight safety" are being banded around and not a peep, I expected Dispatches to be on it like a dog on a bone!

Horgy

Now here's a thought. My colleagues do literally hunderds of 'flying spanner' duties per year to destinations any where in the world. They need to take tools with them. Problem? due to the new regulations the tools can only be hold loaded as baggage. All very well until you get to the destination and then you have to wait landside for the bagagge and then you have to find a way to get the tools airside again.
Now factor in potential delays, commercial pressure, stress as a result of this and the 'holes in the cheese' are starting to line up very nicely.
Yes, we are looking at ways to deal with the situation with our sister company by carrying flight spares/toolkits, but we are a third party maintenance organsiation and have many other customers.
We are now even having full cans of engine and hydraulic oil held in the vans used to support aircraft confiscated at security points which means that every time one of our vans goes landside all aerosol sprays, oils, grease and other fluids stored in the vans as self contained support vehicles have to be emptied out and then restocked when they return airside.
Strange thing is that at least one a week, I see a Coca Cola truck stacked with soft drinks,airside replenishing vending machines. Consistency? I think not.

Temps

I think that one's been tried, and it didn't work. If you're just after water, take an empty bottle in your carry-on and fill it at an airside water fountain. Anything else is more problematic.

Leathermans tool
 

A few years ago I had a multi tool confiscated at Brussels. I'd forgotten it was in my hand baggage- got it back when I returned there the next week. A couple of years later I was going thru Geneva airport and found they sold Leathermans, Swiss army knives in duty free. When I asked was told it complied with FAA regs - blade less than 4 inch long. This was pre 9-11 but I believe the same items are still for sale at Geneva.

AAA737300BF wrote

A good idea.

But, think of it from the airports perspective (over my part of the world the airport is responsible for screening). Flightcrew make up at a guess 1% of the aircraft "passengers". It's a lot cheaper just to dump this 1% in with the other 99% than have a separate screening process. If you want it to happen you need to show some cost benefit, or it needs to be mandated by govt. or whoever the authority is.

I work at an international terminal (as a security officer), most of the crew I deal with are foreign. Are you suggesting a worldwide database of pilots. I can't see that being easily implemented. While I'm sure most flight crew pose no security risk at all, if you were currently parked between a Georgian and a Russian flight that were using the same departure lounge would you feel more comfortable knowing that the crews were screened. OK maybe a bit far fetched, but I'm surprised there isn't more industrial sabotage in the airline business.

Tempsford, that reminds me of situation we had to deal with.

Sending a crew and spanner monkey (sorry engineers!) to an aircraft with a tech problem. the engineer wasnt allowed to take his tooling as carry on, due to the "security risk" so checked it to save aggro and get the job done.
Of course the equipment didnt make the flightand was due to be sent on the next scheduled service out. which didnt make it either. the crew and engineer had to sit for 3 days which defeated the object of sending the crew and engineer out to ferry the aircraft back.

Oh wise one that wears his shreddies outside his tights.

I am sure that I speak for the majority of the UK Aircraft Maintenance Engineers when we say that we look forward to supporting your next AOG. :ok:

ICTS - disgusting, dangerous, drug ridden bunch!
 

Firestorm:

Absolutely spot on! I was THINKING this, but didn't think I'd get away with writing it on PPRUNE. You did, there's some chance for us still.
Us the professionals, the airline pilots, the crews - not the TERRORISTS as we are being viewed every day by those earthbound misfits, mistakenly called security.
Security my a*se! As I wrote before, we've all seen the programme on ICTS on telly, what a dirty/corrupt, drug ridden bunch! Yuck := := :=

We had that at a certain south-west airport,(stores accomodation was 'landside') but a letter from the 'boss' saying it was essential for aircraft maintenance duties, and quoting the same reference as crew are allowed from D of T did the trick.

ttfn