Petition to remove liquids restriction for UK aircrew

[wiggy]

Anyone remember a guy called Andreas Lubitz?

Yes..now ask yourself whether his carrying his own yoghurt, water, toothpaste had any bearing on what he did.

Aircrew are not a master race free from corruption of the mind and should be subject to the same restrictions as everyone else.

OK, so we won't attempt to access the flight deck, we will make sure we are in possession of a valid ticket ...

Guess what, in order for you actually travel by air crew and others have to do lots of things passengers are not allowed to do.

[Deep and fast]

If you want to mention lubitz, what about improving pilots mental and physical health by dropping this liquid nonsense and allowing us to take our food in made from home. Let's face it, there is a lot more chance of something getting airside in all that stuff that they bring through to sell airside. Lots of anonymous boxes packed by people on bad wages.
Remember picking up an aircraft from a foreign military base with just a wave through the gate flying straight into..........Heathrow. And yet you all believe it's secure. Dreamers, it's about the money.

[Chesty Morgan]

Originally Posted by Tim91

And what about ATC? Not just flight crew who should be exempt. ATC have just as much 'right' given their access at their workplace as you guys claim to.

Do you want us to start a petition for you?

[carousel]

All the special people

So it's Flight Crew +Cabin Crew +ATC +Fire Crew +Ambulance Crews +Border force + Customs Officers + Police + HMP Custody Officers and contractors + of course fuelers baggage teams engineers all of which have been security cleared and need no further checks. Oh of course the security staff who are the ones who check the checkers who need to be checked by who?

[easyflyer83]

None of the above, other than cabin crew and flight crew, have access to the flight deck once the aircraft engines start.

[T250]

At the end of the day let's be subject to the same rules or have no rules at all.

Are we really going to get into some elitist hierarchy of who is the 'most important' at the airport. It's pathetic

Yes there are already exemptions (believe it or not!?) for certain scenarios and individuals. For example, police responding to emergency calls are able to go airside immediately, without being subject to any checks.

But then these are the same guys carrying firearms around the airport airside on a daily basis, no problems there as they have been subjected to multiple psychological testing to even carry these. And dare I say it, their psychological testing hasn't failed yet, whereas in case of you flight deck, it has. Remember last year in the Alps?

[beardy]

Ah, last year in the Alps. Remind me how many ml of yoghurt were involved and quite how the lack of psychological profiling for crew has any relevance to the inability to carry said yoghurt to the cockpit? Which, incidentally, he could, because he wasn't subject to the UK DfT rules when he reported for work.

I can take a litre or more of any fluid into the cockpit when I report for work on the homeward sector from the USA and from many other countries , but not when I report for the outbound sector from the UK. Only here do we have this rather pointless procedure to prevent pilots from assembling or helping to assemble a liquid bomb to destroy the aircraft over which they have control, sufficient control to destroy it without the need for any device.

We don't have the same rules for everyone at the moment as you have highlighted with but one example.

There is no elitism in treating crew differently from passengers. It is normal at almost all airports outside the UK.

[haughtney1]

Ah, as ever the spotters come out spouting the usual rubbish about things they know little or nothing about.
Fact, I can go to work stark b0llock naked (God forbid!) and via my own hand cause the early end to all my passengers aka that German chap. The mere presence in my flight bag of a bottle of water or can of tuna (in oil) makes not one iota of difference, the restrictions as they are applied to crew in the UK are a joke, EVEN in the US, this has been recognised as such, and now I can greet the TSA with coffee in hand (yes it gets scanned) show them a quick sip, and all is good.
To all you spotters and those of the "we are all equal" persuasion, get used to the fact that our health, happiness and well being has a direct bearing on our ability to do the job of transporting you to your destination in a safe manner, we are not all equal in the sense that our job, our responsibilities and our professionalism means that just like the police, fire service etc etc, we are part of the solution, not the problem.
The UK restrictions on crew are a laughing stock worldwide and are merely theatre in disguise.
Petition signed.

[PDR1]

Originally Posted by haughtney1

Ah, as ever the spotters come out spouting the usual rubbish about things they know little or nothing about.

Ah, the self-important aircrew come out spouting the usual rubbish about things they know little or nothing about...

Fact, I can go to work stark b0llock naked (God forbid!) and via my own hand cause the early end to all my passengers aka that German chap. The mere presence in my flight bag of a bottle of water or can of tuna (in oil) makes not one iota of difference, the restrictions as they are applied to crew in the UK are a joke, EVEN in the US, this has been recognised as such, and now I can greet the TSA with coffee in hand (yes it gets scanned) show them a quick sip, and all is good.

All if which is true, but not relevant, and demonstrates why some of the more arrogant pilots may want to leave the thinking to ohers!

If a pilot can take fluids airside then two pilots can take two bottles of a binary explosive airside. Once airside they can hand them to groundstaff (say, during their walk-around) who could place them in an aeroplane that neither pilot would be flying on.

Now consider the above concept, with the two pilots being pilots of private jets (so not known to anyone or subject of a vetting programme), and the target aeroplane being (say) an American or Israeli airliner. Consider that the pilots may be taking said bottles through to airside because (say) their wife and/or daughters were being held hostage, as was the groundstaff person. Consider that in both cases they had been told that they were under cosntant surveillance by others in the airside areas, and should they approach or message anyone in security there would be an instant text message resulting in the painful death of their loved ones...

To all you spotters and those of the "we are all equal" persuasion, get used to the fact that our health, happiness and well being has a direct bearing on our ability to do the job of transporting you to your destination in a safe manner, we are not all equal in the sense that our job, our responsibilities and our professionalism means that just like the police, fire service etc etc, we are part of the solution, not the problem.

The unpleasant arrogance embodied in this statement is just incredible. Do all professional pilots support this attitude?

PDR

[RexBanner]

The liquids ban has been shown to be absolute nonsense regardless of whether it is crew or passengers carrying them. I remember reading from an expert that you would have to be mixing these liquids in the toilet for hours on end under laboratory conditions with a sustained heat source for all of that time, whilst somehow managing to avoid suspicion in order to even stand a chance of inducing an explosion. An interesting read:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08...r_labs/?page=2

[beardy]

PDR1,
The UK seems to be alone in considering your scenarios a risk. No strike that, the UK seems to be alone in not modifying it's reaction to the changing threat.

BTW thanks for feeding some of our less well educated readers ideas. FYI, there are easier routes to get hazardous materials airside.

[Chesty Morgan]

Originally Posted by PDR1

If a pilot can take fluids airside then two pilots can take two bottles of a binary explosive airside. Once airside they can hand them to groundstaff (say, during their walk-around) who could place them in an aeroplane that neither pilot would be flying on.

So in every other country in the world where the liquid restriction is not in place this happens, what, regularly?

Or is it just that the UK has a higher percentage of pilots bent on blowing up someone else's aircraft?

By the by I can, if I chose, put many tonnes of highly flammable liquid on board my aircraft and fly it into the Houses of Parliament, or any other juicy target in the UK, before anyone would have time to say scramble and I'm only one of hundreds or thousands who could do that every single day. Why would I risk carrying some liquid explosive with me whilst going through security?

[haughtney1]

PDR

Ah, the self-important aircrew come out spouting the usual rubbish about things they know little or nothing about...

You don't happen to work in the "security" industry do you? Or perhaps you are one of the old BAA security bods who are all 007 wannabes looking for that illusive "sleeper" hidden amongst the masses?

And then this dross is trotted out...

If a pilot can take fluids airside then two pilots can take two bottles of a binary explosive airside. Once airside they can hand them to groundstaff (say, during their walk-around) who could place them in an aeroplane that neither pilot would be flying on.

I don't need fluids to do any of that, I can merely hand them if I desired a compromised battery from a mobile phone, or perhaps an aircraft fire axe, or some metal cutlery from first class.....but using your logic, what about the policeman..."under duress" armed with an assault rifle? Or perhaps the rogue fire fighter in charge of the 30 tonne fire truck! Goodness me, there are threats everywhere! safer to shut everything down, and not apply ANY common sense or risk assessments.

And yes PDR, those of us who are subject to this dross are almost unanimous in our "arrogant" attitude towards those who impose poorly thought through and poorly implemented rules on the basis of flawed logic that flies in the face of industry best practice.
It's not arrogant to question the motives and competency of those who make decisions, it is in fact an essential element to what makes aviation incredibly safe, after all, every 6 months I have to prove I am competent, are those who make these rules up (often reactively) held to the same standards? Or is it merely easier to call pilots arrogant for asking questions? Or worse.

[RexBanner]

Let's suppose for one minute that these things are even viable, which is hugely questionable. Ever tried to throw a bottle filled with liquid? Unless you're a five year old child (or a woman oops controversial!) you'll have found it's not exactly hard to propel it a fair distance. How about some terrorist chucks a bottle of liquid explosive over the miles and miles of non monitored airport fences and his mate on the inside goes and picks it up, or even better he works airside himself and just goes later in the day to go pick it up himself. You don't even need two people.

Congratulations, you've just bypassed airport security screening. Extremely easily and without the need to embark on risky and extremely fanciful kidnap and blackmail programmes.

[RAT 5]

1. 5 pax each with 100mls to be mixed or 1 pax with 500mls of dodgy stuff: what's the difference?
2. I was at XYZ (UK) crew only security. Along came the trolley for the airside shop laden with sandwiches, yoghurts & 250mls bottles of water for sale. They all went through the X-ray and were cleared. I asked the x-ray man how they could tell it was really water? There was a silent stare, (if I tell you I'll have to kill you type of stare). Trust us. "So why can my bottle of water not be assessed in the same way?" Silent stare, again. "Orders guv."
I was travelling as a pax through NCE. I'd bought a triple pack of small tins of something in a tomato paste. In total it was more than allowed and the paste was deemed a liquid. Solution? Open the pack and put each tin separately into a 'sealable plastic bag' and our group to take one tin each. You couldn't make it up. But I do give praise that it was the security lady who came up with that solution rather than throw the tins away. All rules were obeyed and everyone's backside was covered. Brilliant.

[sdh2903]

And what about the hundreds and thousands of engineers, ground handlers and so on? We are generally stuck airside with the same access to the airside food shops for our liquids. Usually for a 12 hour shift. At least (most) of the UK airlines provide bottled water, meals and tea and coffee on tap. We get diddly.

Don't make this elitist because the drivers are seen to be above everyone else. Because without all the minions doing their bits there would be no flights either.

[T250]

As usual, flight deck/flight crews think they run the airport and are the only people operating from it

If we relax rules on certain things for staff then let's do it for similarly responsible individuals and job roles. These should include:

- ATC
- Fire Service
- Airfield Operations
- Security Personnel
- Police (including armed)

You as flight crew are not in any way unique into the supposed danger you pose to your aircraft, all the above have relative dangers too. ATC can screw up either accidentally or deliberately. Fire service have a range of equipment which is dangerous and potential weapons. Airfield ops drive all over the airfield constantly and have unique vehicle access to the runway. Security, well that's obvious. Police is an easy one too.

It's a bit rich that all you flight crew concentrate on yourselves, there are a lot of others on the airfield who can do harm before you even get airbourne! and this is before we even consider the great unwashed pax themselves!

[Chesty Morgan]

Do you need us to start a petition for them too?

[RexBanner]

T250 do you have to take a case to work containing toiletries to keep you clean as a matter of courtesy to the guy sitting next to you for the day? Do you then have to go away on three, four or five day Shorthaul tours with no facility to check said toiletries into hold luggage as exists for Longhaul crew. Leaving you having to pointlessly remove those utterly useless 100 ml liquids containers every single time you pass a security checkpoint.

This isn't about elitism. You don't have to carry liquids to work on a daily basis, we do. This is about a sheer frustration that we as flight crew encounter which doesn't quite apply to ground crew who at least get to go home to their beds at the end of the day and shower/wash properly in the morning before coming to work.

[haughtney1]

As usual, flight deck/flight crews think they run the airport and are the only people operating from it

If you think this, you are based on my own observations of my flightcrew colleagues....wrong.

I agree BTW whole heartedly with your assertion, we all have a stake in this, but alas the vested interests in security see more profit potential in creating threats out of thin air.

As an aside, part of the reason flightcrew are generally more vociferous in our opinions, is that for the most part we are the last line of defence...or the ones riding the thing to the ground, and, as a group, we have the greatest to lose. We also have the benefit of seeing how other places operate perfectly well without applying these daft restrictions.