Stansted - Security and Formalities

[A2QFI]

Went thru Stansted yesterday and was pleased with the apparent improvement in the outbound security and return immigration. Went out at what is usually a peak time ie 0600 check-in and was thru security in well under 10 minutes. Still the shoes nonsense where some people are checked but not others. Coming back at 1830, instead of the milling scrum at Immigration there were about 10 people waiting for each desk, about 8 manned. Baggage turned up very quickly and I was lucky with the bus back to the mid-stay car park. 40 minutes from on chocks to driving away which seems good to me. However, I appreciate that there are probably fewer passengers actually being handled in the 2nd week in December than during school holiday August. I am a regular user of Stansted but it was way better than I expected.

[Blues&twos]

Came through Stansted last week - same experience, quickly through security with no fuss.

In fact they were so friendly, one of the security guys singled me out, asked me to step towards him, then gave me a cuddle and fondled both my legs.

Looks like I got away lightly though. I noticed some people a bit further on being asked to undress.

[alfamatt]

"Still the shoes nonsense where some people are checked but not others".

Security staff apparently have to do the shoe check on certain % of SLF (& crew), eg 1 in 5,1 in 3,or 100% depending on the threat level in place at any one time. This goes back to "the shoe bomber" , Richard Reid, IIRC.
The idea behind it being random looking is so that a baddie would not know whether they would be searched or not, & therefore would not try to get anything bad through using his shoes (bad odours excepted).
In a perfect world, one might argue that 100% of SLF & crew should be searched in this manner, but manpower, delays, negative SLF reaction etc etc.
Matt.

[25F]

Except it doesn't seem to be random - in my experience if you avoid catching the eye of any of the security staff you will not get asked to do the shoe check. And vice versa. And if it's "random" for shoes why not "random" for bags? Why not just confiscate one water bottle out of three? And will our shoe bomber give a toss if if he gets pulled over for the shoe check, or just detonate there and then? In fact wouldn't self-detonating in the security hall itself be more disruptive than doing it on the plane?

[llondel]

In fact wouldn't self-detonating in the security hall itself be more disruptive than doing it on the plane?

This is the one thing that the clueless people running the show have yet to deal with. The Glasgow incident is the closest thing so far. It's also not limited to airports, plenty of other places with a lot of less security and a lot of people.

Ultimately it's a tradeoff, we risk death in return for liberty. You're probably still more at risk crossing a busy road.

[AdamC]

Security at Stansted has certainly improved in the last few months, with more staff manning the search points.

Immigration at Stansted always has long queues, even at the end of November when I flew in, there was about a 60 minute wait.. I guess it all depends on the time of day really.

[Crromwellman]

Went through STN in early October and this was our experience.
My wife's handbag was checked because she had four pairs of spectacles (two of hers, two of mine). The security operator took all the pairs out and examined them minutely and then re x-rayed the bag before giving it back to us. How come that the first x-ray operator couldn't idenetify spectacles in plastic cases??
When we arrived at our destination we found a full box of Swan Vestas matches in the bag. When I travelled with the RAF these sort of matches were a no-no because there was a chance they could self-ignite. Only safety matches were allowed on board.
So the much vaunted security can get itself into a lather about pairs of spectacles but miss potential DAC. Gives you confidence doesn't it?
When I did my security courses in the Army, we were always told that SECURITY MUST MAKE SENSE. I wonder if this is applied to airport security or its a case of think of a regulation

[radeng]

"SECURITY MUST MAKE SENSE"
Strangely, that what's they told me on the in-company security course I did 20 odd years ago, on working on classified projects and handling classified material.
So where did this, to my mind vitally important point, get lost when transferred to airports?

[Final 3 Greens]

Had the hilarious experience last week at STN of being stopped because I had a laptop security cable in my case (with laptop.)

The security guy said I should pack it in my suitcase as I could use it to strangle or hit someone with the combination lock, so I produced my 1kg laptop power brick, complete with 2m of very strong cable. He just went bright red and put the cable back into my case.

Then he discovered a roll of masking tape - "may I ask you what you use this for sir?" - "certainly", I replied, "for sticking flip charts to walls without causing any damage."

"Well sir, we do not allow any stronger tape through." "Good", said I, "because I don't have any stronger tape with me."

One really does wonder at times ...............

[rasobey]

The security guy said I should pack it in my suitcase as I could use it to strangle or hit someone with the combination lock

Like the guy on London Underground who had a cricket ball confiscated (during the Ashes in 2005, IIRC) as he "could have killed someone with it". Genious.

Back to the original topic: I agree, Stansted has improved of late. I'm not a huge user by any accounts, but a flight I took in November had me checked in and into departures within 10 minutes. Nice experience, and one I hadn't thought possible.

If only FR information desk queues could move quicker :ugh: