Why Was Crew Member Allowed to Pass Checkpoint Without Screening?
 

I was meeting someone at SFO last week. As I stood waiting at the TSA checkpoint, I observed various crew members going to the head of the line and being screened.

I also observed one indivicual dressed in an airline uniform. He and his roll aboard walked down the exit lane. He stopped at the podium of a TSA guy in the exit lane, showed him something (ID, paperwork) then proceeded past the checkpoint without having his roll aboard screened, and without walking through any personal screening device.

I have never seen this before, anyone know why this guy had the privilege of avoiding the screening. It occurred to me that he may be one of the pilots with permission to carry a gun on board, but I would think he would have still been screened for explosives (e.g., liquids.)

The crew who proceeded through the exit was carrying a firearm. Really no need to test him for explosives; he doesn't even need te firearm to do damage, he can crash the plane himself.

Flght crew are allowed to cut to help ensure planes leave on time.

I do agree with both of these procedures.

I have no problem with the line cutting.

But, under the rationale that there is no need to check the pilot for explosives because he can crash the plane himself, why check any pilot?

Also, who's to say that the pilot is not bringing in extra explosives and guns to give to others in the sterile area to be used on other fights?

Seems to me to be consistent, all pilots should be checked (including those who are allowed to carry a gun), or no pilots should be checked.

:rolleyes:

I disagree with these procedures. Remember the store of the guy who pretended to be an ICE agent? I remember he was able to escort some lady while wearing two guns. I see no reason why flight crews shouldn't be screened. How do you know they really are flight crew? They might have a fake badge and uniform...

You need to be careful with sarcasm. Some people might not realize that you were joking.

We are not required to check any fligh crew...you hit the nail on the head. ;)

Hmmm, so you have passengers who are screened because they are all suspected terrorists because they want to fly.
You have airport workers, some of which are screened and some who aren't.
You have aircrew which isn't screened.

Hmmm, seems like that is a very large security hole you've got there.

Thankfully, this misguided approach is only followed by the USA and a few others. In the rest of the world, crews are subject to the same (or in some cases stricter) checks than passengers.

The point of physical security checks is not to clear the person (thats the point of background checks) but rather to ensure that no contraband is entering the sterile area (intentionally or inadvertently).

The security checks that you "see" being done at the checkpoint are but one of many that every crew member must go through before boarding an aircraft.

Those crew members that carry firearms go through even more, and are issued credentials that identify them to the TSA as well as ground / terminal airline personnel. And that is not the only ID they must have before boarding an aircraft. So yes, we know who they are before we allow them access to the sterile area.

I don't like the whole crew cutting line thing myself. They are the true professional flyers, and as such they should be prepared for whatever the checkpoint has to throw at them. Arriving 2 hours early, clearing security in a timely manner, and bringing only those things allowed in their carry-on's. These are just a few of the things that crew members "should" be responsible for in addition to whatever requirements there may be for their flight duties. But no one asked my opinion when they made up the rules.

Do you believe the same should be true of TSO's?

I know a flight attendant that flies out of FAT. She says they just scan their ID card and enter the tarmack from a side door, as it's their home base. No need to go thru security.

If they are going to board an aircraft and fly somewhere, you betcha!

Woah, wait a minute, we do! Amazing how that happens isn't it.:rolleyes:

Ron:
Do you not understand crew members are coming to work the same as you ? Are you going to pay them the extra time ?

I was under the impression that crew goes through the screening checkpoint whenever they fly and that they are exempt from shoes and LGA's. I was under the impression that, even at their home base, crew with SIDA are screened if they want to fly that day. If they are just going for a meeting or training, they use their SIDA. Has this changed, or was my understanding incorrect?

I understand that FFDO's always go up the exit lane, just like armed LEO's.

If you think so, I disagree.

As I said before, we are not required to screen flight crew. Many think we are required, even many who work for SAT. But certain arraignments can and sometimes are made so that they avoid screenig.

as others have stated, ffdo (federal flight deck officer) and yes, flying armed (and just as obvious as a fam going thru the exit-all ya gotta do is look, watch and see)

uniformed and on duty or those entering in civvies wearing their airline i/d such as a non-rev going on v/c? (and you know the answer i'm looking for vs what happens in reality at most airports ;))

Lol and you know who I meant...those on dut and in uniform. ;)

Whoa, if that's true then talk to your comrades at MSN and IAD and hook a brother up... :rolleyes:

It's not up to TSA. The airlines have to set up the procedures. Sorry. :)

Actually, FFDOs don't do that "just like armed LEO's." They do it AS armed LEOs.

FFDOs aren't LEOs. The have limited authority to act. On a plane.

The TSA considers them LEOs for the the purpose of TSA's internal procedures in clearing them up the exit lane (i.e. LEOFA)-- is that what you are trying to say?

Thankfully!!

Even if they were all subject to screening what difference would it make? They catch thinks sometimes but often don't so flight crew can even carry guns on board. Oh, they have permission to do that. I have always thought it beyond bizarre that there is official acquiescence to carrying guns on board when a pressure vessel tends to be discomfited if something passes through it, unless the doors are open, of course.

just checkin' ;) :)

Yes, indeed, they have limited authority to act. On a plane. But that authority is granted to them as LEO's They also have authority to possess and transport firearms in accordance with TSA regulations but regardless of state law restrictions. In order to exercise their authority, limited as it may be, they are, in fact, deputized LEO's. As is the case with every U.S. LEO, they have agency restrictions and regulations as to extent of authority, conduct etc. Their restrictions and regulations happen to give them no arrest authority and limit their jurisdiction to the cockpit.

And, yes, they are LEO's for the clearing via exit lane process.

FFDOs are considered Federal law enforcement officers only for the limited purposes of carrying firearms and using force, including lethal force, to defend the flight deck of an aircraft from air piracy or criminal violence.
FFDOs are not granted or authorized to exercise other law enforcement powers such as the power to make arrests, or seek or execute warrants for arrest, or seizure of evidence, or to otherwise act as Federal law enforcement outside the jurisdiction of aircraft flight decks.

http://www.tsa.gov/lawenforcement/programs/ffdo_information.shtm

Worlds smallest jurisdiction.

What do you think of the FFDO program?

Has always been this way
 

It was about 5 years ago I observed a GA at MCI open the back door of the boarding area to let the flight crew into the boarding area, so bypassing the security at the front entrance to the gate area. (As anyone who was ever there knows, MCI has a unique layout where the check-in counters are next to the gates). I questioned the security lead at the entrance to the boarding area how this was feasible and got the honest answer, "we only screen those who the airlines require to present themselves for screening".

It doesn't take a really close look under the skirts of the security theater to recognize that the holes and bypasses in the system are rampant, probably necessarily so. Take a close look at the floor layout next time you're in any typical airport and you quickly recognize the backdoors (SIDA badges and code required, of course) that completely bypass "security".

The only thing that surprises me are the posts of shock from otherwise astute contributors when it is again revealed that the sterile area ain't necessarily so sterile, and the security emperor is completely naked.

Screening flight-deck crew for anything just adds to the illusion. After all, that is the easiest way to have a 9-11 repeat; 1 of 2 flight crew turns terrorist, kills the other and flies a large aircraft into a major building. Feasible? Yes. Likely? Probably not, but significantly more likely than scenarios we spend far more energy and money on; the liquid bomb, another shoe bomb, etc., etc.

The parallel universe effect is even more apparent in posts such as the OP's where the flight crew member obviously had a weapon, but wasn't screened for explosives. How totally bizarre. :rolleyes:

Have you been reading Tom Clancy novels?

Dave

No actually, not for a few years.
Just an observer of the sad, continual misdirected squander of treasure occuring at the nation's airports.

There was a Tom Clancy novel whereby the captain of a JL flight at YVR murdered his co-pilot, then flew out over the Atlantic, before reverting and, after declaring an emergency, did a kamakazi crash into the US Capitol during a Joint Sitting with POTUS already there, really good stuff, reading wise.

FWIW, I think that EVERYONE (including flight crew) in the sterile area should be screened, NO guns should be allowed on an aircraft (even those escorting prisoners under custody), EVERYBODY (including screeners, cabin crew, flight crew, concession staff, McDonalds staff) should have to go through security. AND I mean, EVERYBODY, just like here in Australia.

Dave

Pardon me while I tap dance. Well, I believe the program has the right intent. I don't believe the pilots receive near the training they need. Their recurrent training is almost non-existent. I think the men and women who volunteer to do it sacrifice quite a bit. I know a few and they are level headed professionals. Unfortunately, like any other LE organization, they have their 10% who make the rest of them look like asses. I have no problem with the FFDO program. But I also don't believe it should expand farther than it is now. I believe ALPA is pushing to allow FFDO's to carry at all times, not just on the flight deck. My opinion.

That is so stupid. :td:

Just to clarify, I think it is "APSA" Airline Pilots Security Alliance that was pushing for that authority. I hadn't seen where ALPA had jumped on that bandwagon?

I don't have a problem with the FFDO program. Some think FAM's may feel threatened by it. Maybe some are, but I think most either support or don't care one way or the other.

Debates about chances of occurrence aside, if a traditional deadly force incident would once again take place on an airliner, no one in their right mind would want that to take place on a flight deck, other than as a last measure. The programs complement each other in my mind.

You're probably right. ^ However, I did find this.

So prisoners should be on the honor system to not try to escape or cause harm?

Keep them hand-cuffed. I've been on several flights where prisoners were being transferred, they always had the window seat, and were hand-cuffed for the entire flight. If they are a MAJOR security risk, transfer them by road or in a private or military jet. Either way, EVERYONE on board needs to be screened.

Dave

On the surface, it would seem like a solution. However, some of the prisoners have a very serious known record, not taking into account the offenses they haven't been charged with. When a prisoner is being transported by commercial airline, it usually means something bad. Local and state jurisdictions won't generally extradite for minor offenses and Federal prisoners could be just about anyone. Many times ground transportation isn't practical due to manpower restrictions or detention regulations. Private and Government aircraft are not very cost effective and it would take an extraordinary case to justify the expense. We're talking the difference between two or three $500 airline tickets vs. several thousand dollars an hour to operate an aircraft. Also, having other armed LEO's aboard is a force multiplier for the FAMS. Don't let the fact that someone is handcuffed fool you into thinking they are harmless. Anyone with the proper training and motivation can defeat handcuffs, all they do is slow them down.

Still doesn't address the issue of this thread (I went off on a tangent, which you are addressing, sorry, trying to drag this back on topic), that some people on board are screened and some aren't.

EVERYONE on board should be screened. If the powers that be determine that some should be armed (and I don't think anyone should be armed, but that is another issue) then let them through screening, but they should still be screened, so that ONLY the authorised armaments are carried on, nothing more.

EVERYONE in the sterile area (even the screeners themselves) should be screened, to ensure the sterile area is, in fact sterile.

As an example, members of the Australian Protective Service (a division of the Australian Federal Police) have to go through screening, they do not have to remove their side-arm, but the rest of the body is screened. (They tend to get wanded, it goes berserk at the waist, due to the sidearm, handcuffs and quick-load ammunition, not to mention the retractable baton). But the fact remains that they are screened. But they are not on board an aircraft.

As I said, in short, EVERYONE should be screened, passenger, burger-flipper, screener, pilot, gate-agent, it is the ONLY way of making sure the sterile area is in deed sterile.

Dave

When the wand goes bereserk at the waist is the waist area checked for handguns that could be carried behind the baton, handcuffs, and extra magazines in a in the waistband holster? If not what was the point? After all that officer could be bringing in another handgun to give to someone else in the sterile area correct?

FB