GHS070

This report is but one of many disturbing security reports received by CHIRP about seeming over-zealous security screening practices. These concerns apply to all major UK airports, but sadly the ability of CHIRP to address security concerns has diminished considerably due to lack of engagement by security stakeholders.  Although we have contacts with CAA AvSec staff, we are told that although they can provide contact details for associated agencies, they will only become involved in reports where there has been a breach of Regulatory Compliance rather than for issues that they perceive as customer relations problems resulting from the application of processes. But the application of onerous security procedures that exceed the requirement (although superficially a laudable goal because who could argue against more security?), carries with it its own hazards of introducing safety risks elsewhere. Although it is understandable that security requirements are location and context specific, within this there is great variability and inconsistency between shifts and security personnel. The degree to which individual security teams might exceed the minimum security requirement should be monitored to ensure that they are not being over-zealous and unthinkingly introducing safety risks in the pursuit of unnecessarily superlative security. In this respect, in parallel with the 37 communications (or failed attempts at communications) with the associated security organisation in this report, we also contacted the Department for Transport (DfT) for their advice but we were simply referred back to CAA AvSec.

Why is this important? There appears to be an absence of a responsible stakeholder who might take up concerns about the wider aviation safety aspects of onerous security activities on aviation professionals. Moreover, it seems that these safety aspects and the sensitivities of distraction and pressures during worker screening are not widely understood by some security operatives or their organisations.  Whilst perhaps operating within their regulations and remit, the deleterious effect on aviation workers’ dispositions and fitness to operate as a result of overbearing security processes must be highlighted to those security staff who interact with aviation professionals; unlike most PAX, crews and aviation staff undergo security screening every day and, even without such one-off incidents as described, the cumulative impact of overbearing checks can also soon mount up. Every link in the aviation chain has a duty to promote or be cognisant of air safety. Whilst physical safety from security threats is of course vital and must be suitably thorough, there needs to be an awareness of the safety threats associated with workforce distraction or time pressures introduced as a result of delays or attitude during security screening.

CHIRP will continue to pursue these issues until there is a sea-change in communications and culture within security organisations to preclude the possibility of a serious incident or accident. It may eventually be the case that a member of flight crew doing a safety-critical role will be unable to operate due to security induced stress and so they must take themselves off a duty if this happens rather than pressing on to get the job done; the associated disruption to schedules might even be a driving force for improvement. Operators must be receiving internal reports of security difficulties; the question is, who will take up the challenge in driving change, rather than just filing reports (investigated or otherwise) in Safety Management Systems (SMS)?