ePetition re British airside security [Archive]

Wefeedumall

9th May 2007, 13:56

Come on people, Girtbar took the time to set this up and with over 150,000 members in Pprune plus just look at how many people have viewed the 2 threads and yet we haven't reached the 200 signatures mark yet!
We are all fed up with the show they call security and this just might have an effect if enough of us take the 30 seconds or so to sign.
Mods is there any chance of making this a "sticky", even better if it could be stuck to all the appropriate forum's?
GET SIGNING!:ugh:

homer09001

9th May 2007, 13:59

Signed!!

i find this a big problem i work airside at NCL, and not being able to take liquids airside mean ive gotta by all my drink airside, which on a 12 hour shift is a good 3-4 bottles. which is costing me £5 a day and about £15 a week, which i just can't afford!!

SLFguy

9th May 2007, 14:05

homer..
1. your shop is ripping you off..try Tes*o's
2. On the bright side..you only work 3 days a week..:}

D'oh!

blueplume

9th May 2007, 14:11

Happy to sign up in principle but could someone not have proof-read it first? If you´re going to write to the PM at least make sure spelling and grammar are correct. If not, the reader will be more inclined to treat it less seriously than it deserves. ;) Ready to get shot down.

Impress to inflate

9th May 2007, 14:12

I've put my thumb print on, good luck

homer09001

9th May 2007, 14:15

NCL airport doesn't have a tesco's airside

its £1.45 for a bottle of lucozade from Smiths

i work 4 days a week 2 12 hour shifts and 2 6 hour shifts

dwshimoda

9th May 2007, 14:24

Signed, and agree with Blueplume - it would have carried a bit more weight with correct grammar and a little more reasoning.
However, totally agree with the sentiment, and doing something as Girtbar did is always better than doing nothing!

DW.

frieghthound

9th May 2007, 15:04

This may help with the ongoing lunacy that is our airport security.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/airside/ (http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/airside/)

Please take a look and send it to as many airline staff as you can

:ugh:

Dan Winterland

9th May 2007, 16:50

Signed.

Here in the People's Republic of China, they have the same regulations but have seen sense to exempt all flight deck and cabin crew. Speaks volumes!

jshg

9th May 2007, 18:11

I signed in honour of those lovely people in Birmingham Security who the day before yesterday forced me to check in my overnight bag in front of some bewildered passengers (-I explained as much as I could in the time available).
It would have been better without the spelling mistakes - but what the hell, please sign it.

mutt

9th May 2007, 18:54

Tried signing... but British Citizens only.......

Plus the closing date was yesterday/
Oops...me bad... sorry.. :) (edited)

Mutt

hotmetal

9th May 2007, 19:30

The closing date isn't yesterday! Check the year :=

TheGorrilla

9th May 2007, 19:37

Think it's 8th May 2008. So we have ages to go. Infact, I think we need to do something sooner!

A2QFI

9th May 2007, 19:51

Well if it is May 2008 someone has got time to get in there and tidy up the spelling!

girtbar

9th May 2007, 22:14

Can i just say this has taken me by surprise! I've been waiting for the petition to be approved for days checking emails everyday at work. I only just received an e-mail today saying that it had gone live so to have signatures already is fantastic!

Secondly i would like to apologize for the spelling and grammar mistakes. The wrong petition was submitted and now that it has been approved there is (im led to believe) no way to adjust the spelling or grammar. That said I have sent an email in the hope the team will correct the spelling so fingers crossed. I must admit it does take the seriousness and edge out of it a little. But how long have we moaned about this subject? With no one taking the responsibilty to take 20mins to create a similar petition you've ended up having butterfingers here type one instead!! :}

I really hope this takes off and we start putting the pressure on to get things changed!
Cheers,
Dan ;)

stellair

9th May 2007, 23:53

Gritbar,

Good on you for setting it up. Please, please, please do press them to allow you to edit the descriprtion though as if worded correctly and well supported with signatures it may help to change the current state of affairs! I have sent an email link to everyone in my airline for this petition, if everyone else here takes just 5mins out of our busy lives to do the same it should be a good turnout.

Cheers everyone...........:ok:

Litebulbs

10th May 2007, 02:52

Get over it and walk through! We are not that special!

rubik101

10th May 2007, 03:04

Girtbar, your spelling notwithstanding, I happen to think that the wording is too specific. You should have petitioned that the whole system be reviewed, not just that we be allowed to carry liquids through security.
At the larger airports, where there is seperate chennels for flight crew it should not be too difficult to alter the system. The problem comes at the smaller airports where we share the facility with the pax. Having one rule for them and another for us is not going to work.
I'm afraid the petition is doomed unless you can come up with a workable alternative to the present system.
Having said all that, I have signed!

A and C

10th May 2007, 07:12

Lightbulbs, As an engineer you have to go through the same "security" as aircrew but you probably only have to do so at Gatwick, LGW is on of the more sensable places to work at with very few jobsworths and a more reasonsble interpritation of the rules.

From a an aircrew perspective I have to put up with a different set of rules at each airport (even within the BAA group!) and getting your baggs on the aircraft is sometimes a major logistical effort when you have to find out what the "system" is at each airport.......... and all this with only an hour before pushback due to the FLT's.

Ask yourself what your stress level would be even before the jobsworth decides that an item that you have with you (not on the banned list) is banned at this airport, undoubtedly some of the security people see this as a sport and irritating a captain is the best sport that they can get, far better than messing about a lowly engineer (I am a LAME so I know about these peoples veiw on status).

The fact is that these pointless irritations have nothing to do with real security as both engineers and aircrew can find a thousand ways of damaging an aircraft IF they so wished.

The stress when working away from base is becoming a real flight safety issue, so I have to ask you "lightbulb" would you want to put you wife and kids on an aircraft that was being flown my a pilot who had just been subjected to the treatment outlined in the last issue of CHIRP?

I think that the aviation world has failed to remember that aircrew stress was a major factor in the accident involving a BEA Trident near LHR .......... so why do I face this stress each time I turn up for work?........... it is to protect the goverment and civil servants from fleet street NOT to protect us from the terrorists.

RoyHudd

10th May 2007, 07:23

As Flight Deck often working through MAN, LGW, and recently EDI, GLA and CWL, I can confirm that the stress factor is very real and is high for myself and colleagues going to work. Stress and frustration are risk factors for safety, and it is time BALPA and IPA combined pursue a civil action against the CAA and BAA, along with individual airport operators. This should be undertaken NOW, and aggressively. An immediate effect in lowering the scandalous level of intrusion and upset must be the objective. I am sure there are competent law firms willing to undertake the brief.

HZ123

10th May 2007, 07:56

Empathy aside,it is also stressful if the secuirty levels are unsatisfactory. It seems that after so many incidents once again we are all becoming complacent again. Surely by now crews should know exactly what is permissable and what is not thus avoiding stress and strain and the airport community has got to get over it.

Freelance_uk

10th May 2007, 07:58

signed, well done!

jshg

10th May 2007, 08:06

Litebulb and others, the current security rules came from the same people that brought you ....
Dodgy dossiers ..... WMDs in 45 minutes ...... tanks at LHR ...... tax credits fiasco ...... HIPs to name just the ones that come to mind at the moment. In all these cases the politicians overruled/ignored the advice of the specialists. The security rules are a political fig leaf to give the impression that effective measures are being taken, when as everyone has pointed out they have no real impact on security and a great impact on safety. Why is it secure for ground staff to hand me my checked-in overnight bag ten yards after Security when I could simply have carried it through? Why use up valuable pre-flight time finding somewhere to check in my bag at some UK airports (but not others) - and NO US or other overseas airports ?
CHIRP is currently emphasising the stress caused by these pointless rules, which were one of (I think) only two occasions when CAA objections were overruled. Gesture politics have no place in civil aviation.

noodnik

10th May 2007, 10:51

Stress is having Airport and Government Authorities constantly watching over your shoulder.
Stress is having to follow the rules and regulations to the letter (even if you don't agree with them) with the fear of the sack if you don't comply with them.
Stress is dealing with the people who look down on you as if you're a piece of S**t. on a daily basis.
Stress is working in the Aviation Security Industry not having the inconvenience of standing in a queue to have your bag checked.
Get a life

girtbar

10th May 2007, 12:50

Perhaps someone else could re-word a new petition?

For the same length of time most of us spend looking around the boards on Pprune a new petition could be winging its way to 10 Downing Street.

Any takers?

blueplume

10th May 2007, 14:05

Not so long ago one of our engineers was called off-base. Once there she(!) had to go landside at the small island airfield. On her return to continue with her tasks she was asked to identify herself and upon informing security guard that she was the engineer and they were her tools she was told " that's ok then, as long as you don't go near the planes". Some people are just stupid.

stellair

10th May 2007, 21:37

noodnick,
It seems it's you who should get a life, or at least another job, then again if this petition works you just might be. If you disagree with the rules in place then bloody say something to your superiors and co-workers, we (aircrew) do which is why this is such a hotly debated topic at last.

HZ123, This is what you posted in freight dogs and we are still waiting for a comment from you regarding the last sentence.

I think 'fear and stupidity' is a little on the strong side. They assure me that their actions are merely in response to the percieved threat levels. As someone involved albeit on the rim I see a need for more and a far greater level of consistancy. Be in no doubt that that there are plenty out there particularly in the UK plotting as we complain. Futhermore I have little sympathy with crews as they in themselves pose a threat to each other particularly with the ethnic diversity within the UK alone.

It's also clear that you never leave the confines of one airport, as we aircrew do, otherwise you would know that different airports such as non BAA have different rules regarding what can and can't be taken airside as they are free to increase the security level above a set minimum. :ugh:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/airside/

noodnik

11th May 2007, 09:12

Sorry Stellair

Got a life, Got a job so why should I whinge on your behalf.
If you don't like or want to follow the rules you get another job.

Flyit Pointit Sortit

11th May 2007, 11:40

In our company, aircrew flying from our continental bases to the uk are not subjected to anthing like the same 'security' measures but are still flying in UK airspace.:ugh: It is that type of short sighted approach that we are fighting here not just the "incovenience of being searched" although the stress levels are heightened as a result of security.

Airport profits are going through the roof by confiscating all those explosive coffees and soft drinks at security thus ensuring that everyone has to pay sky high fees. Thus there is absolutely no incentive for the airports to provide staff channels or for the DfT to have a sensible security policy.:=

just for the record, the Security Staff at my home base are always polite and couteous to me as I pass through with my crew:D . I wouldn't like to have their job where you are having to enforce poorly thought out and blatently stupid policies but face big penalties if you don't.

anyway, I've signed up

powerless

11th May 2007, 12:03

Another name added.

Loose rivets

11th May 2007, 15:32

Noodnik says

Sorry Stellair

Got a life, Got a job so why should I whinge on your behalf.
If you don't like or want to follow the rules you get another job.

Flying is not just a job, it's a vocation, one in which the average pilot want's to stay...for their entire working life. God knows, for most of them it's cost a fortune to be there.

While I accept you are being a responsible person in not wanting to be out of work, I sincerely hope that you are not burdened with doing the job you're doing for more than a few years.

HighlandBoy

11th May 2007, 15:40

But thanks to all crews who have supplied me with water or anything wet whilst airside,madness why I cant carry water airside,yet can have a drink from a schedule or G.A plane.
Very appreciated here at EGPE:ok:

Wefeedumall

12th May 2007, 16:41

I see we have passed the 1000 signatures today but I thought with all the strong feelings about this subject we would have gained a lot more by now. And for those people who have had a small dig at Girtbar for his spelling at least he did something which is more than can be said for a lot of the "whingers" out there.
Anyway lets keep it going because as I said in another thread, that started all this, "the anti road pricing" petition made headline news and so should this.
Thanks to all that have signed, quite a few names I recognise.:D

girtbar

13th May 2007, 01:06

I have just noticed that most of the spelling mistakes have now been corrected!

1,055 and counting, i hope the number continues to grow!

Bally Heck

13th May 2007, 03:51

Hey terrorists.

Lighten up for goodness sake. Depending on which airport you go through you can achieve anything. They all have different rules. Shoes on here...off there. Chewing gum on socks here....not on socks there... None of them will have a big impact on your activities. And looking on the bright side, if you can't get your 100ml of explosive through, at least you know that you have fricked up the lives of tens of thousands of people. And ten of you can do a litre! Hard to organise? Probably not:ugh:
Oh. Wait a minute! It's not the terrorists who have fricked up everything. It's the government. It's the TSA, It's the people who are probably making huge amounts of money from investing in companies who profit from anti terrorism measures.

An afterthought. Prime Minister going somewhere. Probably a celebrities pad in the Caribbean. Prime Minister searched? Not too sure on this one, but i suspect not. Flight crew who could destroy the lives of everyone on board if they flew naked? Oh yuss. Seriously searched because there's a celeb on board. Is that nonsense? Maybe it's just me but I think so.
Trust me terrorists. You have done every government a favour. You have made them think they are more needed. Given them an excuse to bomb anyone. And of course, and this is the best one, an excuse to spy on, search, and generally be a pain in the arse to everyone but themselves. (But they will be on the lecture circuit shortly)

Not sure if that rant is sufficient. Will inspect it tomorrow.

monkeyboy

13th May 2007, 09:42

Signed! The last one of these I signed was the petition to keep the Red Arrows going. Old TB said afterwards that he would keep them going........we'll see if GB says the same! :hmm:

The Mixmaster

14th May 2007, 07:44

Signed.

The amount of times I whisper w****ker under my breath while passing STN security is getting beyond a joke. Have all security staff been bullied at school? I say yes...

stellair

15th May 2007, 16:56

Noodick,
I can't sum it up much better than loose rivets but...
I wasn't asking you to 'whinge' on my behalf, you said
Stress is having to follow the rules and regulations to the letter (even if you don't agree with them) with the fear of the sack if you don't comply with them
So..........Whinge on your own behalf or does it say in your security bible that this is not allowed :p
And the reason I sugested you get another job is the number of times you mentioned stress. It's bad for your health you know. I only get stressed out once a working day/night and that's when I visit you before work.......the rest of it I love

Everyone sign this to relieve Noodick of his stress :E

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/airside/

Anotherflapoperator

15th May 2007, 17:22

Signed.

It's not getting a life I miss, just a sensible attitude and the use of common sense in security measures. The rules that treat security staff as robots doesn't help either our attitude to them or theirs to us. I do agree there's a definite minority who are on a power trip though.

I sign, You fly

17th May 2007, 22:26

I've just signed as well.
Note the latest CHIRP, as a possible source of hope
It is very frustrating not to be trusted with milk for your coffee, but ok to be trusted with expensive aircraft and peoples lives!
It's interesting to note that you could theoretically bring in 10 x 100ml cartons in your sealed bag, but not a 350 ml coke etc.
Funny, you can't buy drinks or milk in less than 250 ml, so the airport has to sell their 'screened' items.
Who was involved in advising the Government about restricted items? Airports,(Esp. BAA) maybe?
That's why I'm working towards an out of this industry, which I have been in since I left school and used to love.

speedbird_481_papa

18th May 2007, 00:06

Yea good on you for setting this up!

Working both landside and airside at BRS for EZY check-in I can be told to go airside all day or stay landside.

I can not see why staff should not be able to take liquids airside, after all, havent we had our security clearences which in-turn says we are allowed in a restricted zone? And as such, means that we do not pose a threat to the security of the airport?

I have signed this and I am going to pass this website on to my colleagues who work airside all the time who i know will sign this!!

Regards

Gareth

Superpilot

10th Jun 2008, 14:49

The response:

http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page15721.asp

Took them 1 year to respond and what with? this piece of bull-crap? Let's face it, the gummi'nt only listens to who it wants. Including liars.

EatMyShorts!

10th Jun 2008, 15:20

Do these people at your DOT know that crew in the rest of Europe (and most countries of the world) are allowed to bring as much liquid with them as they like? In Germany (don't know about other countries) passengers can also bring knives with blades of up to 6cms with them, small scissors too. I am quite happy that it is so much easier for us outside the UK - I hate airlining from the UK because I always have to check-in my crew-luggage. Normally I travel with my crew-luggage in the cabin, always!

Piltdown Man

10th Jun 2008, 15:32

Obviously, we are a complete bunch of idiots who don't understand the first thing about aviation security. The font of all knowledge is to be found within the Department for Transport and these guys have their fingers truly on its pulse (although I think, firmly grasped around their veined members might be more accurate). So we needn't worry, the checks are necessary and required and all the naughty people will be prevented from doing horrible things because of them (the image of the toll booth in Blazing Saddles comes to mind). And as they are doing a review, they'll no doubt recommend no changes - because they were right all along!

As bunch of jokers current running this country days appear to numbered, how about ignoring this lot and instead start fresh with Theresa Villiers mailto:[email protected]. Dishing the dirt on the current fiasco might also put pressure on the current mob (or is the collective noun for group politicians a "Jerkel"?) to think twice.

PM

helimutt

10th Jun 2008, 15:32

Our overriding priority is the protect passengers and all those who work in the aviation industry, primarily from acts of terrorism. The threat to aviation in the UK remains both real and serious, which is why the Department keeps all security measures under constant review.

All staff that work in the Restricted Zone (airside) have to undergo background checks as a condition of pass issue, but it is also right that they are screened in the same way that passengers are. This is because searching and screening is an effective of ensuring potentially dangerous items are not carried into the Restricted Zone.

This does not imply a lack of trust of these professionals, or that they are any more susceptible to terrorist sympathies than any other group. We simply cannot assume that members of staff at our airports would never be involved in supporting terrorism, whether deliberate, unintended or coerced.

No single measure can provide a complete solution to security - even after having their background checked a member of staff could still subsequently be found to be colluding with or being coerced by terrorists and provide a means to attack any aircraft, and not just the one that member of aircrew may be flying on. We should not take this risk.

That is why the physical check is an integral part of our security procedures.

Any reports of intimidation or aggressive behaviour by security staff at airports should be addressed and resolved locally with the respective Aerodrome Manager.

Measures remain under constant review and we will adjust them where possible to reduce the burden on all concerned, while maintaining robust security.

In December 2007 The Secretary of State for Transport announced an independent review of how personnel security is delivered across the transport sector, including background and identity checks and related measures. It will provide a timely health check of current arrangements across the sector. The review is expected to conclude its report during the summer.

Makes you feel so secure that such well educated people are running this country. A very poor argument I think. No liquids allowed, onboard captain, oh, except the 200tonnes of jet fuel you have tucked away in the tanks there, but we know you won't do anything silly with that will you? Why not? Because you've been security screened for your airside pass.

Country being run by absolute tossers!

old,not bold

10th Jun 2008, 15:38

Extract from The Response

Any reports of intimidation or aggressive behaviour by security staff at airports should be addressed and resolved locally with the respective Aerodrome Manager.
Measures remain under constant review and we will adjust them where possible to reduce the burden on all concerned, while maintaining robust security.
Bland, ineffectual nonsense, and one suspects that the writer knows that it is. Spare us the meaningless buzzwords like "Addressed and Resolved". How would an operating aircrew actually do that.

Another quote, this from the CHIRP Feedback Spring 2008;

"The CAA continues to express the view that...aspects of ...CRM training should enable individuals to deal effectively with any adverse experiences associated with airport security, and protect them against the deleterous effects of stress. The perceived benefits of CRM training, together with the safeguards afforded by ....adhering to SOPs lead the Authority to conclude that the risk........is adequately mitigated, as evidenced by the fact that no flight safety incidents have been reported."Those of us who are interested in safety should dwell on this quite remarkable piece of pompous, circular drivel put out by the CAA.

It says

1. Because crews are trained to deal with stress, there's no need to change something that causes stress.

2. All will be solved as long as crews adhere to SOPs. Yes, well, we know that; but the problem is that perhaps they don't, due to the stress created by the security process.

3. Nothing is worth doing unless and until a flight safety incident has actually occurred and been reported a such. This is CAA tradition, of course. Wait for the accident and then prevent it.

spud

10th Jun 2008, 15:42

At least his Gordiness is consistent. He doesn't listen to anybody.

Might be time you stopped electing them don't you think?

mikehammer

10th Jun 2008, 15:52

Have the CAA gone mad? How is CRM applicable at a securtiy post? I understand that as crew we are trained in CRM, but now security staff are too are they? If so they need a new trainer.

Muppets.

Genghis the Engineer

10th Jun 2008, 15:55

There was a petition last year asking for protection of the term "Engineer" only for people with professional qualifications (no washing machine engineers please), it got over 30,000 votes -about 10 times what this did.

And the response was just as completely pointless and useless. Actually probably worse, at least this time they actually answered the question (even if it was with "no"): the engineers petition didn't even really get that.

Makes me so glad I didn't vote for the current government.

G

cortilla

10th Jun 2008, 16:00

Semantics I know, but no-one technically voted for the 'current' government

fireflybob

10th Jun 2008, 16:10

So then it's still a question of where do we go from here? If the government won't listen through the "formal" channels then it's time to have a little "informal" protesting. Any ideas?

RoyHudd

10th Jun 2008, 16:56

Let's see how our friends deal with a copious number of plastic drink bottles full of urine, innocently carried within crew bags. They really can't complain in having to handle and dispose of said items, anymore than can we when it comes to shoe/belt removal, confiscation of shaving foam, and the like. A single unified day of action would probably achieve a good result in terms of publicity, although doubtless many colleagues would be a little too fastidious to undertake this.

overstress

10th Jun 2008, 17:00

Taking the p*** to work - there's an idea!

Big Tudor

10th Jun 2008, 17:13

even after having their background checked a member of staff could still subsequently be found to be colluding with or being coerced by terrorists and provide a means to attack any aircraft,
Simpler way, just refuse to succumb to the body search. A fundamental basic of British Law is the presumption of innocence. Unless security have evidence that an individual has been or is likely to be coercedwhat right do they have to search anybody? Even the police in the street have to have grounds before they can stop and search a person. The fact that someone works airside does not provide any evidence that a person is likely to perform a terrorist act.

This is because searching and screening is an effective of ensuring potentially dangerous items are not carried into the Restricted Zone.

No it doesn't, even with the appalling use of the English language. There is a long list of items that have made it past the screening process, and that is only the items that people have admitted to.

grundyhead

10th Jun 2008, 18:32

As an RFFS bod, is still amazes me that when we enter the RZ from a CZ in our vehicles, Security will remove bottles of water from the cab as they exceed 100mls.

They never remove the 10,000 ltrs that are stored behind the cab!!!:rolleyes:

Final 3 Greens

10th Jun 2008, 19:05

Another wrong headed idea.

Your occupation is relatively small and has little or no leverage.

If you got together with millions of pax and made a case for sensible security measures for all (you could differentiate between pax and crew procedures), then you might have a chance.

As it is, going it alone, you'll crash and burn as you simply don;t register on the governments radar.

mkdar

10th Jun 2008, 20:38

Sign a petition
This petition is now closed, as its deadline has passed.
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Relax the restraints on airside pass holders carrying liquids. More details (http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/airside/#detail)
Submitted by Dan Rivers – Deadline to sign up by: 08 May 2008 – Signatures: 3,042

I wanted to sign, too late I guess

Dairyground

11th Jun 2008, 14:42

Petitions rarely achieve anything - this one seems to have received a regurgitation of the established policy from a low-level civil servant, rather than the result of due consideration by someone with authority.

A much better approach would be to get an MP or member of the House of Lords to take up the matter. I have observed, long ago and on a completely different topic, that a Parliamentary Question can work wonders.

This piece of SLF is sure that there are some among you who habituate the sharp end who have good personal contacts in the right places and can make a good case to them.

Even if nobody currently active is in touch with him, there is at least one prominent member of the House of Lords who was a BA pilot and active in BALPA. Can anyone get him interested?

Biggles225

17th Jun 2008, 19:57

I agree, the response was very disappointing, and a not entirely surprising reprise of existing policy! :ugh: The Chingford Skinhead might be a good bet to take it further!

Romeo India Xray

18th Jun 2008, 06:15

The response was the usual kind of uninformed lunacy you come to expect from the office of Gordon Brown. Thankfully I am now FAR away from the UK mad-house, in a little utopia where we are free to bring our drinks through screening, even the dizzy quantities of a 1.5L bottle of water!!!!! In that same utopia the security individuals still address you as "sir" and invariably wish you a pleasant flight - If my memory is correct, wasn't it like that in the UK some time in the dim and distant past?

Hard Rock

18th Jun 2008, 07:28

I have a commuting contract with an airline that bases its crew in SFO, JFK, AMS & NRT. I work with people of all nationalities from American to Australian, South African to British & a very common thread from all of us is the the fact that we will, at all costs, avoid passengering through the UK (read LHR). This dreadful 'security' policy in place in the UK is doing nothing but bolstering the profits of the airport operators who racketeer by allowing Boots, et al, to sell overpriced food & drinks airside. When there are no more passengers left who are prepared to transfer through LHR they'll look round & ask, "How did that happen, what happened to all of our profits?"

I already had my present position lined up when I was clearing security at LGW & had my sandwiches & water confiscated at the check point. I pointed out to the rude security agent that should I need to cause any damage to anyone then I was about to take a large jet aircraft that contained 22t of fuel into the air. On the flight deck there was a crash axe & rope etc., should I need any implements other than the machine itself with which to cause damage. His response was to then confiscate my banana! :ugh:

I thankfully no longer live or work in the UK, it's a great shame but that country is being run into the ground by the present bunch of Scottish dominated, loony lefties who have never listened to reason from any expert, in any field, at any time since they came into power in 1997. The response to this petition is just another example of their sheer arrogance. My sympathies to all crew who have to endure the present regime in place at our nation's airports.

The terrorists must be laughing their rotten heads off :E

Flap40

18th Jun 2008, 09:26

So the guv'ment say that rules cannot be relaxed due to the risk of staff being 'coerced' to help terrorists. This they say will prevent weapons/explosives etc falling into the wrong hands.

So I ask the question, are BAA staff immune to coercion?

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj36/jodel_bucket/DSC_0834copy.jpg

I have blurred the individuals face and the vehicle reg' in this shot but I still have the original.

I think that wepons in the hands of civilians in any area of the airport is a bad idea.

Phil1980's

18th Jun 2008, 09:35

The Government are correct...
"We simply cannot assume that members of staff at our airports would never be involved in supporting terrorism, whether deliberate, unintended or coerced"

Being a professional pilot doesn't make you trustworthy, and other staff members who are airside. I've worked airside for a long time and well just dont take liquids through if you have problem...there's plenty of places to have a drink.

Fly GA if you want freedom to take your liquids, that's what I want to do, I mean yes I do find it annoying to, to have to go through security and I prefer the airfield style better than big airports...but that's life, we live with bad people although maybe 20% but still it's 20 in 100 people. Just my estimate based on a lot of people watching.

I used to wonder why, but I went through a phase in myself of reasoning...something some ppruners can't do very well as previously I got bullied on this forum.

spannersatcx

18th Jun 2008, 09:41

I think that wepons in the hands of civilians in any area of the airport is a bad idea.

But you'd rather have a bird or rabbit ingested in an engine?:eek:

111boy

18th Jun 2008, 09:55

Or even worse a banana on the flight deck, heaven forbid....

Standard Noise

18th Jun 2008, 10:11

Heard a funny one that happened recently at Bristol.
Contractor for a decorating firm turns up at the security post. Puts 20 odd litres of paint and white spirits through the x-ray scanner. Security didn't bat an eyelid.
He then put his lunch through the scanner and the security idiots confiscated his yoghurt!!!!:ugh::ugh:

Flap40

18th Jun 2008, 10:24

But you'd rather have a bird or rabbit ingested in an engine?

12 bore shotguns are not the normal means for scaring birds and I've yet to see a rabbit that can fly!

1800ed

19th Jun 2008, 19:13

A .22 rifle is very effective against rabits and birds. A shotgun makes a hell of a mess, I wonder why he was issued with such a weapon.

call100

20th Jun 2008, 20:32

A .22 rifle is very effective against rabits and birds. A shotgun makes a hell of a mess, I wonder why he was issued with such a weapon.
The reason you are wondering is because you have no idea of the job. The Shotgun depends on bore and the choke used etc etc. The weapons are used within strict rules by trained personnel.
12 bore shotguns are not the normal means for scaring birds and I've yet to see a rabbit that can fly! They are not used for scaring they are used for Killing. Some years back a 767 (Thompson I think) ingested a rabbit that was loafing on the runway at Birmingham . It only just managed to stop, The engine had to be replaced (Wasn't Cheap) 25p for a cartridge would have been cheaper and safer..

ZeBedie

20th Jun 2008, 21:10

It makes me laugh when I go through security at MAN following 4000 x .5 litre bottles of Coke, destined for airside WHSmiths, all of which are x-rayed. Then they tell me I can only take 100ml of liquid. WTF?

42psi

20th Jun 2008, 21:15

and rabbits get eaten by slightly more hazardous things such as foxes and even buzzards.... (EGCC has been having a few buzzard problems of late)...

Human Factor

20th Jun 2008, 22:09

They are not used for scaring they are used for Killing.

Rather depends how good a shot he is.;)

Loxley

21st Jun 2008, 14:18

Contractor for a decorating firm turns up at the security post. Puts 20 odd litres of paint and white spirits through the x-ray scanner. Security didn't bat an eyelid.
He then put his lunch through the scanner and the security idiots confiscated his yoghurt!!!!:ugh::ugh:

Similar one here, except it was a guy coming to clean out all the air-conditioning system. He had various acid/alkaline fluids and solutions which he banged through, and then they took his bottle of water off him! It's actually beyond a joke now. :ugh::ugh:

Yarpy

21st Jun 2008, 14:36

Quote from the Government's response:

We simply cannot assume that members of staff at our airports would never be involved in supporting terrorism, whether deliberate, unintended or coerced.

So you can you be 'coerced' by a terrorist into mixing exposives on the flight deck but not be coerced by the same terrorists into assualting the other pilot with a crash axe and using the aircraft as a suicide weapon.

Please explain the logic to me.

flyingbug

22nd Jun 2008, 09:21

Call100

in response to pilots doubting the validity of BAA personnel not being open to coersion and carrying shotguns airside you quote:

The reason you are wondering is because you have no idea of the job. The Shotgun depends on bore and the choke used etc etc. The weapons are used within strict rules by trained personnel.

So aircrew are not able to take yoghurts onto the flight-deck because they are not trained to a high enough standard? Or do you have no idea about our job?

(By the way the BAA shotgun carrier looks as though he is working alone - is that the safest method of allowing guns airside?):rolleyes:

call100

22nd Jun 2008, 15:54

Call100

in response to pilots doubting the validity of BAA personnel not being open to coersion and carrying shotguns airside you quote:

Quote:
The reason you are wondering is because you have no idea of the job. The Shotgun depends on bore and the choke used etc etc. The weapons are used within strict rules by trained personnel.

So aircrew are not able to take yoghurts onto the flight-deck because they are not trained to a high enough standard? Or do you have no idea about our job?

(By the way the BAA shotgun carrier looks as though he is working alone - is that the safest method of allowing guns airside?):rolleyes:Actually that's not what it was in response to. Read his post again.
No I don't presume to tell a pilot how to fly an aeroplane. Please explain how the Yoghurt enables you fly....
Go to any airfield and the bird controller usually works alone.......

I Am as pissed of about the security mess as you are. In this we are all on the same side.

Fg Off Kite

27th Jun 2008, 19:44

I fear that our illogical and expensive farce of airport security is here to stay, how can the Government now justify losing so many jobs?

A risk assessment should be commissioned: Is the time, inconvenience and expense justified, bearing in mind the statistical probability of being caught up in a terrorist attack? How much more likely are we to be killed or maimed during our journey to the airport?

Whilst in no way trivializing the deaths of the 3,000 people lost in 9/11, what exactly is being done about the 20,000+ lives lost on British roads alone since then?

Perhaps we could re-train our venerable security staff to be driving instructors.