GHS070 - Unacceptable treatment by security

Initial Report

I arrived at Security 1 hour and 25 minutes prior to operating [Location] – [Destination] in order to allow adequate time for the important performance calculations required for this Cat C airfield. Both sectors were due to be full pax loads, and careful checking of aircraft status, landing and take-off performance was vital as we were close to maximum operating weight limits. The sector was my own [destination] route check.

I removed all items likely to activate the security scanner from both my flight bag and my clothing. My personal effects passed through the x-ray with no concerns. The scanner activated as I walked through and I was called for what I presume was a random search. I have done this a thousand times but what followed was degrading and humiliating.

With little or no courtesy, I was told to spread my arms and legs out so that the handheld wand could pass over my body. No activation. The operative then ran his thumbs around the inside of my trouser waistband, and as he did this, the back of his hand brushed against my genitals. I felt extremely uncomfortable but said nothing at this stage. I was told to remove my shoes and my legs and feet were scanned again by the handheld wand. Still no activation. I was then told to stretch out my legs and stocking feet so that I could be scanned again. I pulled up both my trouser legs to my knees to show that I was concealing nothing but was then ordered to pull down my trouser legs so they could be scanned again and told that I had violated their procedures. I protested that by now things had gone too far and was engaged by the entire group of 5 security staff, one of whom demanded I hand over my airside pass. I refused to do this and the scene escalated into an angry exchange based upon my apparent unwillingness to be thoroughly searched. I was told that I could not from this point touch or use any of my personal equipment as I was in contravention of their procedures. This was 5-1 aggressive bullying behaviour. I did, however, manage to get to my phone and called [Operator] Ops to explain I was being detained by Security and I passed the call to a security operative to explain why. The situation deteriorated further to a point where the Duty Manager was called. After the 5 of staff had a group discussion with him, I was asked for my explanation. I gave a factual account, adding that his team were aggressive, intimidating and looking for trouble. At no time had I activated the scanner.

I was then taken behind a screen where I was body searched again, witnessed by 2 more operatives. It felt like being admitted into custody. Once again, there were no activations and I was allowed to proceed to the aircraft, by now late for my report and furious at the way in which I was detained. The whole experience had eaten up 25 valuable minutes. I was by now in no fit state mentally to operate, but there were no other [destination] qualified crew, so I judged that I should calm myself down and do the duty. I rushed through the flight preparations and the flight departed 15 minutes late.

What concerns me most is my distracted state of mind at that time. In 25 years, I have never felt so overwhelmed by anger and frustration as I set take-off power on the runway as we departed for [Destination]. The root cause was the heavy handed, aggressive and disproportionate way in which any observation on the way I was treated by no fewer than 5 staff members were received. In most other walks of life, this would not be tolerated, though it is becoming the new ‘normal’ at [Location] Airport.

CHIRP Comment

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)?