EPIRB on a Plane?

[ylop]

I spent 30 years as a commercial pilot, I don't agree. My attitude towards the jobsworths is because they never applied common sense or even stuck to their own rules. I could walk through the scanner stark bollock naked and still crash the plane even though they'd taken my nail scissors off me.

They are not paid to apply common sense. Presumably though no part of your pilot training was about religiously following a process even though 99.9% of the time it would be totally unnecessary? But I'll bet trying to go through naked does get you stopped!

My attitude borne from first hand experience and shared by my colleagues I'm afraid.

Your experience is probably driven as much by the way you, and other people wearing similar uniforms treat them.

The cabin crew were issued written warnings if they were caught with a bottle of water in their bag.

As you'll know - delaying a flight is hugely expensive, so if someone delays a flight by trying to take water through security it seems perfectly sensible to take action to stop that, especially since 95% of your customers manage it.

They were above the law, beyond criticism and completely untouchable no matter how blatantly they bullied aircrew with such obvious enjoyment - which everyone experienced on almost a daily basis.

Which law were they above?
Did crew who followed the rules get "bullied" or was it just those who failed to follow the simple (albeit possibly pointless) rules?

It feels like the people who thought they were above the law were people who were wearing a special uniform - if you had special rules perhaps a fancy dress shop would be a route to smuggle nail scissors onto a flight. I've noticed other workplaces with security screening where the rules are not rigorously applied equally to everyone. Want to get a knife into them - just get someone with the right pass to walk straight through - then they can pass you the knife/bag etc... in fact so long as you "look the part" you can probably walk in with the pass someone else lost.

Being MAN based for 12 years, I have witnessed the staff/crew screening point at T3 being audited by internal auditors, CAA and what used to by DfT staff who put unnecessary stress on those security staff. They were forever testing them with items secreted in bags or carry on. A crap job with awful shifts, pay not much better and managed by idiots that are able to regurgitate rules, directives and best practice when challenged.

I have some sympathy for them. Seemingly people who go through security every day don't understand the rules or believe they are some sort of exception. They didn't make the rules, but have to deal with the public and flight crew arguing about them.

That said, the front line staff didn't do themselves any favours goading many flight crew and went through a stage of alerting authorities to flight deck crew who 'Appeared to be intoxicated' causing many unnecessary delays, bother and grief instead of just getting on with their jobs.

And not long ago security staff at Edinburgh were the ones who spotted a pilot who was well over the limit having been drinking that morning... the "mitigation" in court seemed to suggest it was an ongoing drink problem which was now being treated. So that made me think, so was this not the first time he's flown a plane pissed but nobody has reported him before? If thats the case the trust placed in flight crew suddenly gets erroded.

While I welcome no longer having to remove my shoes for US airport security as I am aged over 75, I am puzzled by the logic behind this. Is there a compulsory retirement age for terrorists?

ironically - you'd think it would be easier to recruit oldies who have less to live for! I think they also exempt servicemen/women in uniform? Also struck me as a massive bit of inherent bias. Whilst those policies seem stupid to me I don't have the urge to argue with or demean the minimum wage screening staff who have to deal with the stupidity of the travelling public.

 

[Buck Turgidson]

They are not paid to apply common sense. Presumably though no part of your pilot training was about religiously following a process even though 99.9% of the time it would be totally unnecessary? But I'll bet trying to go through naked does get you stopped!

Your experience is probably driven as much by the way you, and other people wearing similar uniforms treat them.

As you'll know - delaying a flight is hugely expensive, so if someone delays a flight by trying to take water through security it seems perfectly sensible to take action to stop that, especially since 95% of your customers manage it.

Which law were they above?
Did crew who followed the rules get "bullied" or was it just those who failed to follow the simple (albeit possibly pointless) rules?

It feels like the people who thought they were above the law were people who were wearing a special uniform - if you had special rules perhaps a fancy dress shop would be a route to smuggle nail scissors onto a flight. I've noticed other workplaces with security screening where the rules are not rigorously applied equally to everyone. Want to get a knife into them - just get someone with the right pass to walk straight through - then they can pass you the knife/bag etc... in fact so long as you "look the part" you can probably walk in with the pass someone else lost.

I have some sympathy for them. Seemingly people who go through security every day don't understand the rules or believe they are some sort of exception. They didn't make the rules, but have to deal with the public and flight crew arguing about them.

And not long ago security staff at Edinburgh were the ones who spotted a pilot who was well over the limit having been drinking that morning... the "mitigation" in court seemed to suggest it was an ongoing drink problem which was now being treated. So that made me think, so was this not the first time he's flown a plane pissed but nobody has reported him before? If thats the case the trust placed in flight crew suddenly gets erroded.

ironically - you'd think it would be easier to recruit oldies who have less to live for! I think they also exempt servicemen/women in uniform? Also struck me as a massive bit of inherent bias. Whilst those policies seem stupid to me I don't have the urge to argue with or demean the minimum wage screening staff who have to deal with the stupidity of the travelling public.

Would I be correct in thinking you work for airport security?

 

[jlavery]

Seeing as we have major Fred Drift into airport security, here's my story number 1.

In the mid 80's, my then girlfriend and now wife was travelling to Tanzania as a recently qualified doctor. She was taking out X-ray film for the very rural local hospital where she was destined to work.

The astute reader may see where this is headed.

"Hi, I've got X-ray film in my bag, which can't go through the X-ray machine, what should we do?"
"It's OK madam, the X-ray machine doesn't damage film."
"No, it's X-ray film it will be damaged."
"It's OK madam, the X-ray machine doesn't damage film."

Seeing that this could go on for some time, and even at the tender age of 25(ish) not one to suffer fools, she took out the package of X-ray film, held it next to the X-ray machine and said "Look - X-ray machine, X-ray film. There's a link! It will be damaged!"

Finally the lightbulb went on in the security bod's brain, and he agreed that indeed the X-ray film would be affected by the X-ray machine. They went off to a darkened room, where he fumbled with... the package (so she tells me)... and agreed it could be allowed on board.

 

[jlavery]

And story number 2.

When on one of my many flights to Edinburgh from Southampton when working up there, I followed a family to the security desk, where the security lady was scanning boarding passes. The wife then pecked her husband on the cheek, and walked back past me, presumably heading home (carrying small child).

When it came to my turn, I muttered sadly to the security lady "I don't have anyone to kiss me goodbye." At which point she stood up, pecked me on the cheek and said "There you go sir, happy now?". Now that's service.

 

[ylop]

Would I be correct in thinking you work for airport security?

You would be incorrect in making that assumption.

 

[Refueler]

Airport .... Stanstead. (not a security story though ...)

Early days of Ryanair to Riga .... the check in was usually two desks way over to one side of the hall. I knew which two desks. This is the days before the zigzag walk to queue up ... each desk had own queues.

Lets say they are A10 and A11 ... (not actually but good enough..)

A11 has Ryanair sign lit and a long queue has built up ...... but no check in girl.
A10 sign is not lit .. but I start a queue at A10 - knowing that when the 'girls' appear - A10 and A11 will open.

No-one follows me - they just all stay in A11 ....

Girls arrive - A10 lights up and girl calls me fwd ....

A guy halfway along queue A11 then complains that I should go to back of queue A11 ... while a number of people behind him decide to jump across to A10 behind me ...

I of course ignore this guy - not my fault he / they chose A11 ... Guy gets really angry DEMANDING that I step back and let him in front of me ... I continue to ignore.

By now Check in Girl at A11 tells him to 'calm down' and then A10 girl tells him that if he continues to be rude - he risks being refused check-in.

As I walk away with boarding pass in hand .. he is still complaining ...

 

[Stemar]

While I welcome no longer having to remove my shoes for US airport security as I am aged over 75, I am puzzled by the logic behind this. Is there a compulsory retirement age for terrorists?

Not at Stansted, anyway. My Father in Law, aged about 85, 5' 2" and skinny, had a hip replacement which set off the alarm. He speaks next to no English and the Muppet Brigade had no one to translate - or couldn't be bothered to find someone, so they strip searched him.