Useless Liquid rule
 

Here's a true story a UK Law enforcement officer sezies a shot gun and shot gun cartridges from a domestic belt landside, as these are covered by Section 5 rules they're required to be stored in the armoury, which is airside. So to show how stupid the current rules are he buys a pint of milk to go through security. The security staff prevent the milk being taken airside but have no authority to take the firearm and ammo. So what is more dangerous the Firearm or the milk airside! All Police & Border Force staff carry offensive weapons (a mixture of handcuffs, batons, Pava Spray/CS and firearms depending on roles) for personal protection these can't be touched by security staff. The rules for 100ml should be removed from all staff but unfortunately the airports and retailers would be upset at losing the revenue streams by forcing staff to pay for overpriced food & drinks.

Maybe you'd be kind enough to share your own precious flight crew petition with the other essential staff who maintain your safety (ATC, airfield ops) as well as overall security on the ground (Police, security). Without whom you wouldn't even be in the sky to face such grave dangers or such smelly colleagues. :bored:

But then again, maybe not. It is after all, all about you isn't it :ugh:

T250 would you like some salt to go with that massive chip on your shoulder you seem to have about pilots?

Why only aircrew? Why not everybody else who works airside?

What gives Aircrew the right to bring through something that the fella stood behind them in security can't?

Well as its a flight crew petition then I don't think it applies to anyone else. I'm sure all the other people you mention have the brains to start their own if they so wish, no? Maybe you could start the ball rolling...

But then again, maybe not. It is, after all, up to flight crew to provide the coat tails on which you wish to stand isn't it?

I am surprised by the vociferous way that some people, who apparently work at airports, really don't like pilots. I wonder how many they know. We are in the same industry, what's the problem?

If you think that all employees should be exempt from the liquid ban, make your case and put it forward, as the pilots have done. If you think there should be no exemptions, don't sign the petition.

Why only aircrew? Why not everybody else who works airside?
What gives Aircrew the right to bring through something that the fella stood behind them in security can't?

Why be decisive about this issue, why not unite? Is it because the issue has been raised by aircrew? Initiative? Perhaps, but now the issue is in the open then unite. It does seem odd that the unions who represent all the other airport workers, including ATC, engineers shop keepers, security, etc. act usually have more effective union backing than pilots. Why not raise the issue at your union meetings. I suspect concerted action by all the ground side workers would make the authorities shake in their shoes more than the prima donnas having a whinge.

Are you? Do you think that perhaps the way some pilots (even on here) treat everyone else like something nasty they've stepped in might have something to do with it?

PDR

I agree. Lift the ban for crew.

Although we get crew food which is " tasty " it is tasty because it is very high in salt, sugar, bad fats and e numbers.

I gave it up years ago and take salads in. It would be great to be able to take a flask of soup through.

I would like to know how rigorous the checks on airside produce is. Does that all get scanned?

All Police & Border Force staff carry offensive weapons (a mixture of handcuffs, batons, Pava Spray/CS and firearms depending on roles) for personal protection these can't be touched by security staff.

As a joke at XYZ (UK) my water was removed and dumped. At my EU base it was allowed. The joke was I asked the 'terminator/robot cop' looking guy who waltzed through with his world war 3 uniform if he could carry my water for me. The lack of humour made me think everyone was Swiss german/Colombian and I was in the wrong airport.

No, do you?

You may wish to think that - I couldn't possibly comment.

PDR

And he huffed & he puffed and he blew the house of cards down.

I didn't think you would.

PDR1,

Yes, I am surprised. It seems odd to me that a bad experience is extrapolated to colour your opinion of all pilots to the point that it clouds rational logic. I have had poor treatment by security both here and by TSA in the USA, but that doesn't mean I hate them all, they are just doing there job, sometimes badly. Sometimes I get well treated and it's a pleasure to meet nice people doing a badly designed procedure.

I put it down to frustration, which really gets in the way of being a decent human. Perhaps if we could change the security procedures to something more rational and less anal we would all get along a little better.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that all professional pilots behave like this. I'm just suggesting that there is a small minority who believe themselves to be superior gods in whose presence mere mortals should genuflect as they are not worthy to share the same planet. You see that small minority on here - they're the ones who always insist that they alone control the destiny of millions, and claiming they should get special treatment as a result. They constantly whine about the behaviour of everyone else but almost never look to their own behaviour.

It's this tiny minority who besmirch the reputation of all pilots; the vast majority of whom are normal, reasonable people. the normal, reasonable pilots should really take these self-important blow-hards behind the bike sheds and teach them how to behave.

It's actually quite funny, because in most fields of endeavour those who focus mostly on how important they are usually transpire to be those who are the worst at the job; the pretentious arrogance being a compensating comfort blanket.

PDR

The rules are currently ludicrous- good luck to the petition . I arrive at work, drive my car into a check area, security staff do a quick walk around the car, open the doors, look in the boot briefly etc. I get out and walk through a scanner and will be searched if it alarms . I then walk back out to my car and am allowed to drive airside( to park at the control tower I work in) I could have a great deal of anything hidden in the car(perhaps a can of drink under the chair so I can drink at work!), to say nothing of the fact it is a one tonne high speed aeroplane ramming machine full of fuel should I wish to use it as such or to smuggle any liquids airside.
As i am being 'checked' like this I see aircrew going through the same checkpoint , no liquids allowed etc

It's a procedure that is seen to be done for the sake of it.

Possibly, but for it to work the procedures would still need to apply to everyone.

Simulator trials have shown that some pilots can still meet all performance requirements within an hour of drinking two double scotches (even more for "habitual" drinkers). This is even more true for drivers. On that basis should we give some people exemption from the bottle-to-throttle and blood alcohol rules, or should we continue with the current view that having one rule for everyone is less likely to be circumvented, less prone to error and generally more effective as well as fairer?

Things have come out in this discussion which ARE worth campaigning for. The idea that short-haul aircrew who are on a roster that sees them away from home for a few days are not allowed hold baggage seems (frankly) barking, and that would be worth campaigning for as a simple matter of employment rights, for example.

PDR

Airport security, in the UK in its present form, has more to do with the re assurance of the guillible,and over cautiousness of poorly paid staff watched over by zealous management, than it has to do with anything else. I have no problem with aircrew, actually operating the aircraft, being treated differently. Its their place of work and they are professional people. The rest of us are just travelling for business or jollies. Different rules can apply, whether you like it or not..I`ve signed the petition.Good Luck

I don't agree. It would be nice and would seem fair, but is not necessary. As you have pointed out, some are exempt already.

To apply the rules differently to aircrew would be saying "I trust aircrew and distrust passengers". History shows that this is not necessarily a valid assumption, so whatever rules are applied should be applied to all IMHO.

PDR

PDR, please if you can cite 1 example of where the non restriction of liquids has led to misadventure and or law breaking (i.e binary explosive) with respect to flight crew I will gladly desist in calling your argument vacuous.
The notion and logic of your position is that the authorities attribute an EQUAL amount of mistrust for operational crew as with their passengers would then also surely follow that those same untrustworthy crew should never be let near an aircraft in any other capacity than as a passenger themselves, after all, as you have stated they can't be trusted anymore than a passenger.
The very act of security screening for liquid unpleasantness can't and never will detect an individual's desire or impede their ability to cause harm.

No, it would be saying that impersonating a passenger is easier than impersonating flight crew. Which it is.

Why not look more closely at passengers? I trust my fellow pilots more than I trust any passenger. I reiterate that I, we, are NOT more likely to kill you because we've got 110ml of water.

PDR1,

Aircrew would still have to go through security screening, so we would still be mistrusted and. This is not a binary situation.

Strangely most passengers trust us just enough to put their lives in our hands, despite having seen one suicidal pilot.

I am all for exemptions for pilots. The fact of the matter is those technicians, ATCO's, cleaners, rangers, psa's, dispatchers and security people can ;shift permitting; go landside and fill their boots with whatever food they want.

Pilots on the other hand cannot pop landside as by definition we are either airside or in the air.

The fact that the poor germanwings fellow committed mass murder has no relevance to the liquid debate

I fear the petition will do nothing at all. I do think restrictions should be lifted though.


To the person saying that "pilots can afford to buy a bottle of water from boots or their latte from Costa".
A significant portion of pilots are in the position of having to pay by training loans amounting to £24,000 per year. Plus, probably, rent in the South East. Add food and transport to the equation, and that alone would require a minimum after-tax income of around the mid-£30k. Which is more than many will actually be getting.


To the ones saying everyone should be subject to the same rules. No they shouldn't. As aircrew, I have undergone significantly more robust background checks than someone who bought a ticket on the internet. If I am trusted to have an unescorted airside pass, I should be trusted enough to take a 500ml bottle of diet coke in my flight bag, or a tin of soup, or a 350ml bottle of shampoo for my 5 nights away in another base, without having to pay premium prices the other side of security. If crew got supermarket prices on all items of food/drink, then maybe the rules would be a little more reasonable, but they're as much as 4x more expensive.


To those saying "what about the other workers, why should it just be for pilots", well this is (supposed to be) a professional pilots forum. Not an airport firefighters message board, or a radar controllers chat room. I welcome non-pilots to this forum, and have nothing against them at all, but why take it so personally that it was a petition for aircrew on an aircrew forum?!




The liquids law was only ever a short term reaction to a particular incident, but someone up the chain of command seemed to forget about it and so it's stayed in place ever since.
It's outdated, the threats have changed, there are much greater dangers than people smuggling liquid explosives through.

It's a UK problem this crew security ruling, everywhere else has seen common sense. Many countries don't even have restrictions on passengers carrying liquids.

A few months ago I had to surrender an empty water bottle at crew security which I had managed to take through plenty of times before. It was a liquids container larger than 100ml I was told. Which technically was correct, although containing absolutely no liquid (it was bone dry) it kind of was irrelevant. The rest of my liquids complied, all in containers less than 100ml, in a resealable clear bag.

The fact I would have been able to buy a 2 litre bottle of water as soon as I was through security (and if I wanted to, could have poured the entire contents on the floor) and thus had my large liquids container seemed not to convince the jobsworth security officer to let me keep it. So I left it with her, as she proceeded to get into an argument with the cabin manager from another airline behind me whose spaghetti bolognese was "too liquidy" or some *****.


Anyone who thinks that the liquids laws, particularly on crew (or any airside worker), are a sensibly implemented idea, is, quite frankly, a moron.

It's only the UK and Australia who have these ridiculous rules still in place for operating crew, in the US I can go through without taking off shoes, jackets, belts and anything out of my bag and have large bottles of water.

Australia I would say is worse than the UK at being over zealous and ridiculous with its screening, it's the only destination where crew mandatory have to go through the new X-ray scanners, if something doesn't have a lid it's confiscated even if it's under 100ml and I had toothpaste confiscated because it was in oz instead of ml.

I don't think anyone would disagree that the 'liquids rule' is daft and a waste of everyone's time.

But the way to address that is to lobby remove the restrictions entirely, not to carve-out exemptions for self-selecting entitled groups.

So I'm stuck in a security queue for 10-15 mins whilst a contingent of Border Force proceed to load around 20 boxes each containing 24 cans of coke! When I asked te security operative how come they are allowed to take all that through and yet I can not take a bottle of water or a carton of milk, the response was - they have an exemption for tools of the trade, i.e. liquids, since when has a can of coke been deemed tools of the trade!!! His answer, it's a joke really! I have tools of the trade on my pass, yes but that only allows things like leatherman, hammer, screwdrivers etc not liquids. What a joke.

A small(ish), regional, international, airport in the south (UK) wouldn't allow our company based engineers to take a pint of milk through security so they could make their regular cups of tea. No, no...they had to take four pints through to prove that they were really making tea with it.