CHIRP - More useless CAA comment regarding crew security.
 

CHIRP No. 87 has just arrived. There are 5 individual accounts regarding harrassment of crew members and engineers by security operatives, yet the astonishing comment from the CAA is:

The CAA has indicated recently that the number of MORs related to security incidents has increased; however, relatively few of these identify an actual flight safety risk such as a missed check or a specific action that was necessary to mitigate any risk to flight safety, such as delaying the scheduled departure. In the absence of such evidence, the CAA maintains the view that security incidents do not represent a significant threat to safety and thus, by implication, fall outside the Authority's regulatory remit.
The reluctance of individuals to declare formally that their ability to operate has been impaired as a result of a security experience is understandable; however, it is important to include in any formal report any outcome or additional precaution arising from a security experience, if this problem is to be acknowledged and addressed.

"The CAA maintains the view that security incidents do not represent a significant threat to safety..." Haven't these people ever heard of the term 'being nibbled to death by ducks'? A security 'incident' might just prove to be the final death-dealing duck bite to someone already suffering from tiredness, frustration and fatigue.

The CAA should be made to watch the old military Flight Safety film 'Frustration' to learn how cumulative effects impact upon safety.

Meanwhile, my sympathies for all those crews who have to deal with rude, ill-mannered oafishness from those bottom-fondling failed wheel-clampers who are employed as security personnel at UK airports.

BEagle & all Members
 

This is the CAA playing the 'liability clause'. OK they are saying it ain't in my bailiwick until as such time this situation causes (proven by investigative/forensic evidence) are known. It's just a CYA function, what the heck are those at 'The Belgrano' doing anyway, apart from protecting their old Civil Service pensions?

There was a time when the CAA looked after all licensed aviation members.

Comments welcome, but please not here, place on the JetBlast rant thread, or start a new one.

Cheers folks.

Frustration
 

BEagle
Anyone got a copy of 'Frustration'.......saw it as an ATC cadet many years ago waiting for the rain to pass Manston.....yes a good example for them to see....

No, I'm sorry. I disagree. I spend a lot of time doing the no-shoe shuffle in and out of uniform and at worst the security staff have been disinterested. Most of the time they look you in the eye with a "we're all in this together" resignation. I had a tube of Bonjella taken off me once (out of uniform) 'cos it wasn't bagged. Fair cop. Stupid knee-jerk rule but I broke it.

I also had a row at LGW South about taking 2 bags through whilst positioning. But the BAA security chap sent the two yellow-sweatshirted YTSs on their way and waved me through.

Back at work the only guys who've gone off on one about security are fairly highly-strung and are just as likely to complain about the crew cheese anyway.

There are rules. They may be fair or not but they are blanket rules. We as crew are fully aware of them and they've been around for 102 weeks now. Do keep up. Indeed it's been a long time since I've seen any crew get hassled.

Don't get me wrong: I only work out of three UK airports. All recognise my ID and none cause any problems. If you're an engineer or flight crew who go to odd little nowhere airports then maybe you can tell me I'm out of order.

In the meantime all I can say is the less bitching we do in the crew lanes, the more resources the security folks at airports can devote to rounding up the, ahem, more suspect of our fellow Brits. Watching the 10 O'clock news as we speak. Item 2.

The way in what now amounts to a significant number of Engineers, Cabin and Flight Deck Crews have been humiliated, abused, intimidated and frustrated by the varying degrees and depths of security searches must not be underestimated.

The way in which these searches could impact on an individuals performance in his or her job subesquent to such an experience also should not be underestimated.

Yes there are the hotheads amongst us who do fuel the fire by their behaviour during security searches, but the vast majority who have been ill treated during these searches have said nothing to fuel the sitaution and been more than happy to cooperate fully.

I wear a suit to work. Therefore, my occupation and who I work for is more anonymous than when I used to wear a uniform. The result is that at Security Check Points, I hear the conversations between security staff that perhaps would not take place should my occupation and employer be more obvious. On a number of occasions I have heard the behaviour during security searches of staff from the company I work for openly criticised by security staff. On one ocassion after hearing such a conversation I did make my position within the company known and the security staff were extremely embarassed.

Only recently, the experience of one of my colleagues whilst being searched traumatised him so much that he could not carry on working and left the company. Over reaction on behalf of my colleague perhaps. No, not if you knew the full story.

Temps

Quit after a search?
 

Temps
Ive been through a fair few security gates and have sometimes found them staffed by people brusque to the point of rudeness, but generally they seem aware that they are doing a job that they know is pigging people off, but have no way to change the rules they have to apply.

However comma I'm trying to imagine what sort of search would traumatise someone to the point of giving up their job, and all I can think of is the one involving the long rubber gloves and both hands! But I dont think theyd do that to you unless you were definitely dodgy, and if youre who I think you are, youd never ever live that one down! Let us know, if you can, I for one would be fascinated.

There's no way I'd do the security job, especially after observing some of the attitudes from passengers (or are they customers these days?) - I've seen several who I'd cheerfully deck if they came that with me!

Very cute:

A. In the first phrase, the CAA acknowledges that there is a serious safety issue here, and one they should have the authority to treat (right after stating that there is none, and they don't).
B. In the second phrase, the bureaucracy tells you what it wants. Does the guy sitting next to you keep coming back to the incident at security? That's a "measurable degradation of situation awareness", is it not? Carry a phthegmometer and do a BP check after passing security. Odds are, it'll be measurably higher as a result of your having to explain to those clowns what a phthegmometer is and why you're carrying one. Even if your vital signs are normal, checking them counts as an "additional precaution arising from a security experience."

Was the incident you mentioned investigated by your companys personnel dept Temps?, someone undergoing such a experiance at work which led to that person being unable to continue with their job sounds rather a serious matter to me

The answer is simple. Most of us will do whatever it takes to avoid the humiliation, rudeness, and general prison treatment given not only the crews but the customers. I was going to take a holiday with my whole family to London and show them the White Tower, which I very much enjoyed as a pilot on layover in that fascinating city. I have 19 dependents by the way and I intended to take them all.


Not Anymore. We'll do something by car locally that avoids all this unpleasantness.

I had to smile recently when passing through security with wife and stepdaughter en route to Corfu for a holiday. The security man objected to my daugter's 50 ccs. of perfume in her handbaggage worth about £80. He argued that he was going to confiscate it and she argued that it was worth a lot of money and below the maximum volume of liquid that she was allowed to carry. The security man obviously wasn't going to give in despite my daughter being polite and as reasonable as it was possible to be. Finally it was "So you are totally determined to discard this very expensive liquid which complies with the security regulations to be carried in my hand baggage?"
"Yes"
By what right have you got to security check me anyway?
"Every right as you are a passenger>"
"No I am not - I am persuing a criminal."
With that, she produced her police warrant card, collected her hand baggage, carefully walked around the scanner and rejoined us as we walked towards the departure lounge!

P.P.

I have to say that I'm long past the point of taking a combative attitude with the more militant security people.... Most are courteous and friendly, but as described, there are those who are obviously drunk on the tiny amount of authority they've been given and see themselves as the single handed guardians of our nation's aviation security. Fine. I'd rather they took the job too seriously in some ways than not seriously enough. I just ask in a friendly manner when I get to the scanner if it's laptops in or out and shoes on or off. (Assuming there's no signage to indicate which). I then cheerfully comply with whatever demands they make on me. This has the effect of speeding my way through with the pleasant majority and totally removing the pleasure that the ridiculous few get from ordering me about. I won't allow these idiots to raise my blood pressure one notch. It's not worth risking stress related illness for, and on the odd occasion that someone makes an unreasonable demand, I don't argue, I just make a mental note of their name and ask to see the supervisor. In all cases the problem has been resolved quickly and without fuss.

The above is not meant to devalue the views and experiences of those who unfortunately have received wholly unjustifiable treatment at the hands of security staff, and I like many others feel that the CAA has a duty to get involved with such incidents rather than waiting for the accident to happen. However, I do feel that it is within each of ours grasp to make these searches as painless as possible by going in with the right mental attitude...... That's what I find anyway!

Whilst many people have plenty of tales about the appalling attitudes of many security functionaries, my main concern is that the CAA are seemingly not prepared to become involved in this Flight Safety issue.

The comment in CHIRP runs totally against normal Flight Safety, where if a potential hazard is identified by flight crew, engineers or ATC, something is done about it!

You don't just sit back and wait until after the accident to say "No-one told us it was a problem".

Mind you, after I raised a formal complaint with Frankfurt airport, one particularly nasty security operative was sent for further training and I received an abject apology!

Perfume
 

Pilcher.... is that not mis use of Warrant card if not on duty?

Shouldn't think so. As Vimes says, "everybody is guilty of something". So whoever was in front of her in the queue was almost certainly a criminal and she was definitely following them ...

It was none of the security officer's business who she was persuing and neither was it mine. If she said she was persuing a criminal, then that was her business and as such as a U.K.police officer she was entitled to walk through security at any U.K. airport which she did!

P.P.

I think you should all learn to read between the lines...
CHIRP did ASK for reports to be sent in but, it seems, the reports received don't mention any EFFECT this security hassle is having - just that it is annoying! Big News - it IS annoying.
Make sure your future reports mention something to do with Flight Safety or that you felt it was difficult to make a judgement somewhere - then they might get off their high horses and do something about it!

They NEED EVIDENCE of Flight Safety problems - not just the hassle caused by taking your shoes off.

Have the CAA Lost sight of the Ball......?
 

I have submitted ASRs following harrassment at security, including when a "cock up" was made during a SID. Nothing was ever received back from the CAA.

But God Forbid if I forget to fill an oil level or something else on a Tech Log page........ The e-mails fly around from all sorts of jobsworths in the Belgrano.

Anyone else had this sort of rubbish?

Annoying certainly, a risk to flight safety...gimme a break. Only if you are already using all your available yerkes curve to fly anyway.
If that level of hassle is enough to put you off then you really should reevaluate your career.
As someone has mentioned its is my experience also that its the usual suspects that have daily run ins with security.
I have a few run ins but for gods sake deal with it and stop moaning and writing into pointless newsletters in the style of outraged Colonel Blimps or Major Misunderstandings.
Its embarassing.:ugh:

Got back from a tour today to find said issue of CHIRP sitting on doormat. I too read the CAA's comments with incredulity - what a farce this whole sorry issue is...........sometime soon somebody will miss the googly because they are still thinking about the way they were treated like some sort of terrorist whilst passing through 'security' :mad:

But is anyone saying that to the CAA? Has anyone gone home 'unfit to fly' after a confrontation with security? Has anyone filed an MOR saying they were so annoyed that they felt unable to continue working in a safe and sensible manner and went home. Or even had to lay down in a dark room for an hour.....

Not many, that's what CHIRP are after. If we are really all wound up beyond reason by security, then go home and tell your company and the CAA why. Almost all these CHIRP reports end with the day continuing and even the 'flight leaving on time after top effort by F/O, CC.etc'.

Why Can't We the Pilots Make Out MOR Reports stating the Stress effect.

BECAUSE we all know if one of us says "Sorry I'm Now TOO Stressed to Operate" some smart alec in your Airline Or The CAA, Will say Oh you better not fly untill you have been checked over for being too easily stressed and Oh maybe we will pull your medical untill you can prove that you are in control of your stress levels.

Yes I know we are in control but them Security have us by the short & % and they know it as do the CAA. QED

Sorry CHIRP not much is going to change unless a no jepardy protocol is in place by the CAA, which ain't going to happen.:ugh:

I would find it worrying that pilots were stressed out to the point of distraction from such incidents. Purely because it may indicate an unsuitable personaility type for a pilot.Furthermore, decision making under much greater stress would clearly be faulty following the logic.. So yes I would agree with the CAA/company on this. It may have annoyed you but if that is enough to destroy your skills then god help us all.

Come on guys its posturing of the worst kind. There are many more stresses in daily life that you dont get so uppity about. A bit of a ding dong with a security type should even register. See point one.

One chap where I work is consatnly having issue about being felt up. I dont doubt him but it isnt the security staffs fault. He has an enormous pair of knackers that keep lodging themsleves in the friskers hands causing rather weighty cupping.
I have standard issue clockweights L1A1 two for the use of, that without fail avoid the caresses of the sweaty wandering hands. Much to my chagrin.
I have recommended a firmer support such as a good pair of calvins but he is a luddite y fronter (M+S...5 for 2 quid)

Just get on with it and stop giving people a chance to laugh at our collective pomposity.:cool:

To make it fair and to highlight that you are searching or being searched to find concealed restricted items and their is nothing personal or enjoyable about it, you should be searched by the opposite sex. Some may enjoy it and some may not, just like now.

Having read the collective CHIRP reply to various issues surrounding crew searches I just threw the thing in the bin - whats the point ?

I am tired, so tired, of being security screened by people who clearly have no understanding of aircraft and operating crews. I postively try to maintain an even keel by a little banter and a smile but when told time and time again to remove shoes and belt by a juvenile who calls me 'mate' followed by a 'frisk' which seems a little too 'friendly' for my liking - I just raise my brow and dream of the day when I can walk away for the last time.

It was none of the security officer's business who she was persuing and neither was it mine. If she said she was persuing a criminal, then that was her business and as such as a U.K.police officer she was entitled to walk through security at any U.K. airport which she did!

Wrong. Her abuse of authority was no better than the security persons.

The UK is not a Hollywood film, no authority dressed in black. Police Officers are subject to the same laws and regulations as civilians, whether it is the use of lethal force or taking perfume through airport security.

Her actions are misuse of her warrant card, a disciplinary offence and bringing her force into disrepute.

malfeasance
 

I wonder if anyone has considered whether security personnel who enforce rules too rigorously might be guilty of malfeasance.

I seem to recall that if you work in a public body, this is at least a disciplinary offence, if not a criminal one in some circumstances.

Worth a thought.

Simple English
 

In simple English, it seems to me that the Big Grey Battleship is telling us to EITHER find a way to MOR the problem, OR Shut up moaning.

MOR it or still be moaning on pprune in 5 or 10 years time.....

Having hassle on the way to the plane is not MOR-able. (Most of the hassle is caused by folk living too far away - thus a stoppy security person is likely to irritate someoen who has just driven 2 - 3 hours from their country mansion)

Wee One Before making statements go and check up on the stress "bathtub Curve"
Personally I don't want my Pilot 3/4 the way up it, before he/she has to cope with other hassels and then an emergency.

Go talk to a shrink the'll explain.

I suspect I won't win any popularity contests with my comments, but some people should really get a grip on reality.

There are two separate issues here that some people are trying to merge into one. Don't get me wrong, as I am no great fan of the security screening that we as crew members are subjected to in many jurisdictions. It does seem ludicrous to take a bottle of hot sauce away from a pilot who can use his aircraft as a weapon if he or she is so motivated. And I may roll my eyes when I'm exposed to the minority of security officers who seem to take pleasure in giving us a hard time in front of passengers. But it is what it is, and it's been going on for the better part of seven years now. To whit, it's not like we shouldn't expect it to happen once in a while. The fact that it still stresses some people out concerns me, given that this is hardly the only source of potential frustration we can face on the way to the aircraft. There's a much greater chance that you'll be cut off by some knob on the road on the way to work, than there is that you'll be harrassed by security. And I can't recall the last time someone submitted an MOR for having been cut off on the way to work.

In other words, I am all for lobbying for changes to security procedures to reduce the amount of scrutiny we currently enjoy in some places. Here in Canada, where we have instituted a biometric ID process, we get the third degree far less often than we used to, and most of us like it much better this way. But to try to say that the security process is somehow unique in making us unsafe to perform our duties is muddying the issue at best. Life can be full of stressors, and it's our duty to either deal with them and move on, or to remove ourselves from duty if we feel we can't do so.

"Here in Canada, where we have instituted a biometric ID process, ..."

Well here in the UK I think you will find 'security' is whole different thing. I have no problem with security anywhere else in the world. The UK is totally out of step. Spoke to a Delta crew in Stuttgart the other day.
Me 'Do you fly to London?'
Them 'Sometimes'
Me 'How do you find our airport security'
Them 'Oh we love it. We love it so much that is why we are here'
Me 'Me too'

Lots of my colleauges actively avoid any slips in the UK due to idiotic rules and the nightclub bouncers that enforce them. I am away 12/14 nights a month and had my first UK nightstop last week for about a year.

The managerial technique of stalling for evidence is just one of the basket of common tools, not only in this industry, but now firmly taken root in all sectors of British society. You could imagine Sir Humphrey advising the Minister on how to dodge an issue without having to do anything about it:

Sir Humphrey: "I mean they'll give it the most serious and earnest consideration and insist on a thorough and rigorous examination of all the proposals, allied with detailed feasibility study and budget analysis, before producing a consultative document for consideration by all interested bodies and seeking comments and recommendations to be included in a brief, for a series of working parties who will produce individual studies which will provide the background for a more wide ranging document, considering whether or not the proposal should be taken forward to the next stage."
Jim Hacker: "You mean they'll block it?"
Sir Humphrey: "Yeah."

The ceaseless call for reports and evidence give the officials a limitless cushion on which they can relax and avoid having to do anything precipitous, such as challenge another government department. Far easier to ignore it and print a periodical platitude to those amongst us who suffer this discrimination several times a day.:ugh:

Apruneuk,
Before talking bollocks why dont you refer to it by its real name. Yerkes Dodson.
Next as you have pointed out I too wouldnt want a pilot at the top of the curve before operating. Therefore it is reasonable to surmise that if this level of stress is sufficient to achieve peak emotional arousal followed by degradation in performance then maybe they are in the wrong job.As alluded to earlier on this debate.
Funny how there is no hullabaloo, mor etc on here about self inflicted stresses that strangley dont have the same affect as a minor spat with a ********.ie bad drive in after choosing to live as far away as possible.Row with the mistress,
It always seems to be the bad men at security or management.
Selective moaning. But it does give outlet to lots of harumphing and strenous demonstartions of umbrage.Proper respect and all that. Not safety.
What a crock. Usual suspects giving forth about "my" f/o, my aircraft, my command authority, my knight in shining armour nonesense.
If its cumulative then the onus is on the individual to reduce other stresses as these days security is a known source of it. Its the level of stress it produces that iis in dispute.

So apruneuk why dont you go and ask a shrink, i already have.
JO read your post after I posted mine seems we are on a simialr track although I give way to your eloquence.

If the CAA don't seem interested in safety (see other threads), turn a blind eye at crew hours, EASA requirements for airline ops, staff and maintenance why should they worry about professionals getting highly stressed working in what has now become a self regulated industry after being sexually assaulted and abused before carrying out their duties? As an earlier post mentioned ref 50c of perfume, half the time the staff carrying out the searches don't evn know the rules themselves.

When all kinds of human factor abuses get highlighted, probably, but hopefully not by an incident, then maybe things will be relooked at. Until then just pass over your money for your new license!

Right off to get a WMD (also known as a 250ml bottle of coke) from the vending machine in the terminal which is now safe as it got into the machine via the lift and not central search.

All a rather sad waste of time when you can just hop over the fence at LHR....

As a Security officer ("nob") as we seem to be referred to quite a lot on this thread, 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".
I was also a serving Merseyside police officer until retirement from the force and to be quite frank (as has already been pointed out on this thread), what this officer did regarding the warrant card incident was disgraceful if not embarrassing even though she was right regarding the perfume. There are, as many of you will probably know, certain procedures to be used by police employed at airports..... normal police officers cannot just walk through as they please....The airport chief exec does not just walk through as he pleases, neither do Chief Constables.
I take your point regarding abusive security staff who act way above what they were trained to do and indeed operate as though they have the absolute right to be abusive...yes it does happen often........... Having agreed with most of your comments about the attitude of some security staff, may I please put our point of view.
Even on this thread, we are mentioned as idiots, nobs, etc..... do you really suggest that we do not get open abuse regularly from staff (most of it from cabin crews) who continually moan and groan about their having to go through all these security checks.... Believe it or not, I go through exactly the same security checks with the same rules applied to me as is to you lads and lasses. Taking off my shoes annoys me greatly when I cause the overhead metal detector to activate (sometimes 10 times a day on a bad day). As was also mentioned on this thread previously, we have been operating under these rules and limits on liquids, gel sizes, etc for the best part of 2 years now..... Still (less and less frequently these days) but still mainly cabin crew, are taking things like "a bottle of vodka which was still in my case from the last trip" with them in their hand luggage and believe it or not generally cause a fuss when it is taken from them.
In actual fact folks, many of us actually agree that there should be a relaxation of the rules for cabin crews, but saying that, I return to the fact that the Dept for Transport set the rules and as you pass through all these security points we, the security staff and you the staff who pass through to go airside are so monitored on cameras by DFT and other monitoring bodies..... to that end, if you feel you have been abused, mistreated or generally insulted, I suggest you feel free to ask for the tapes to be replayed... this is done often for various reasons... you may be surprised by what you see concerning the actions of aircrews, security staff and other staff... there are good and bad in security and aircrew staff.
Sorry for rambling on, I just felt aggrieved enough to put my own point of view and indeed the views of the majority of my colleagues. Most of us are not idiots or morons just because we are employed on aviation security. We do actually try to give respect where due.

There are enough intelligent people who work security and are reasonable like i believe DaveyG. I can imagine that security staff do get abused on a regular basis, however some do completely and utterly deserve it. I'll give a few examples from an airport i used to work at as ground staff.

Firstly i tended to see that air crew were usually given more scrutiny than ground staff. Great for me as i was ground staff at the time. Also there were 2 staff entrances, one run by airport security and one run by a private security firm employed by the airport. I always chose to go for the airport security run one if i had time to do so as they were 100 times more professional.

when i went through the private firm run one, i saw a few things that digusted me at the time.

1) A member of the security staff brought through a can of redbull (250ml) to which the person running the scan 'confiscated it' saying ohh i'll have to take that off you that's more than 100 ml chortle chortle and put it on the desk by the x-ray machine. Then the security member who had the drink 'confiscated' from them sat by the x-ray machine to take up their duty and started to drink from the can of redbull that had been confiscated previously.

Similar things happened with coffees on a fairly regular basis.

Now i personally think the rules are stupid, by if they apply to me then they apply to everyone.

To the people who say proffesional pilots need to be able to deal with stress etc. i agree. However why intentionally annoy someone before they start work is beyond me.

I still want to know what the actual rules are. What can and can't a security person do to me. What are my rights. When can my pass be revoked??

DaveyG,

It is not disputed that the DfT make up the spurious diktats under which we suffer. It is the latitude given to local management to 'enhance' any measures they desire to make our lives incrementally more intolerable.

They are effectively unaccountable, and those who have patiently and politely engaged in negotiations with the DfT, have seen carefully and thoughtfully constructed progress simply binned by local commissars who seem to take great pleasure in placing their own ‘interpretation’ on any SDAMs to the frustration and anger of crews. For example crews have reported, LGW 100% shoe removal, GLA liquids bags, EDI foreign crews in tears as their cosmetics are confiscated in response to an instant and whimsical new rule, and cousin Nigel reports spurious BAA interpretations of DfT regulations to keep those nasty pilots out their shiny shops.

What we find exasperating is that other countries don’t seem to share the view that the pilot is the problem. I can honestly say that of all the countries I visit around the world, Britain is the most unpleasant and intrusive airport environment for crews. One gets the constant impression that the government doesn’t want you to be there, and it has reluctantly, and for today only, graciously allowing you to pass. By contrast other airports treat the crews separately, out of public view, are polite, and expeditious. I’m not going to name any, in case anyone inbound from those stations gets the third degree.

As the commander of the aeroplane, I am the ONLY officer who actually signs for the security of the aircraft, and that all the security legislation and procedures have been carried out correctly. All I ask is a little respect for that position, and a little recognition of my status.

Such an environment would unite us all as a team, and we could present a united front against the threat. At the moment it seems to me that from the top of the UK government to the functionary at the metal detector that we are the enemy, the object of envy, the obvious product of a privileged upbringing, and we need to be taken down several pegs to our rightful place.

Wrong or right? You tell me.

Davey G

One of the problems we encounter is a total lack of consistency in the UK. Each airport appears to have its own interpretation of DFT rules and to some extent it changes from shift to shift. The majority of the staff appear to have no understanding whatsoever about aeroplanes and the people who operate them - yes, they are only doing their job but with exceptions it often appears that the staff employed have been recruited en-masse from the local job- centre - thankfully others have been in position for much longer and as such as far more reasonable to deal with on a day to day basis. Those of us who are fortunate enough to travel abroad as a regular basis will testify that most countries have a far more enlightened and friendly attitude to crew security channels - the USA and Caribbean being notable exceptions.

I think Perhaps the Officer in question should have arrested the Security guard on theft charges. It seems quite obvious he(or she) had spotted the liquid and decided it would be worthwhile to hang on to. After all what other reason could they have for confiscating it???

CAA a dereliction of duty
 

Long before a lot of the people on this forum can remember a BEA Trident crashed shortly after leaving LHR, the result of the inquiry into the accident was the basis for a lot of the CRM training that we now regularly receive in the airline industry.

One of the key factors in this accident was that the aircraft captain had been involved in a very heated argument just before leaving the crew room and this was undoubtedly a factor in the chain of events that resulted in this accident.

This was a classic CRM situation and Chirp was set up (funded by the CAA) to highlight CRM issues and help prevent the CRM related accidents.

Disputes with the worst elements of security staff who seem to invent pointless rules and are using the little power they possess to its full extent are as best disruptive and can be very stressful when it is clear that his is all part of some sort of game for the amusement of the security staff.

It is clear that the knee jerk reaction from security to any dispute with them is the sanction of removing the individuals airside pass and along with the pressure from the company to get he job done on time.

On one hand the individual can be instantly out of work with no formal form of redress and on the other hand they are likely to have at the very least a "hats on" interview with the management. This is a classic case when confidential reporting is necessary.

What I can't understand is why the CAA repeatedly pretends that this problem with UK security is not a flight safety issue and continues to ignore the advice form a respected independent body that the CAA is its self funding?

I can only conclude that the CAA is failing in it's duty of care to the traveling public and to those of us that they have issued licences to by not being active in addressing this problem.

The only question that is as yet unanswered is what size disaster do we have to have before the CAA re-learns one of the lessons of the BEA Trident crash?