Airport Security again...

[Alwaysairbus]

It seems the ministry of stupid ideas has come up trumps again at LGW....

All belts must be removed and put through the xray machines to prevent random bleeps going off through secuirty to help everyone move through faster... only problem is queues are longer with everyone grappling to get their belts back on before their trousers fall down.

Another great way of enhancing the whole work experience for us professionals. God forbid anyone finding an unaccompanied belt on the ramp now!

[LGWSTAR]

It all came about due to the moron's on security not detecting planted items such as knives when put through a security test. Resulting action, re calloborate all the metal detectors so they are more sensitive, thus leading to almost every person going through with even a watch on subjected to extra screening due to the "beep" going off. So now im taking my belt, watch, shoes and coat off. Where will it end?

[FairlieFlyer]

If youre wearing something metal, you go through a metal detector then surely you would hope it does show up - Whats the point otherwise?

My issue is the boneheads who watch 50 people in front of them go through and then:

Look puzzled when asked if they have a laptop
get out their laptops out of their wee tumi bag
remove their coats
find the liter of evian water in their bag from the previous flight
try to drink all the water but give up after 10 seconds
have an argument
go through
come back
remove their belt that sets off the detectors most times they travel
blah blah blah....

[LGWSTAR]

Probably more down the the fact that they dont want to actually have an excuse to do their job so they make you throw it all in the xray machine, the beep wont go off and the jackass on the gate just waves you through without having to wave that metal detecting wand over you for 5 mins only to find it was your necklace.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

I went through the other day with absolutely no metal on me.

It still beeped.

[crewmeal]

I've just had 3 implants and a mouth full of crowns and bridges!!!. What happens there I wonder. Should be interesting at LGW. I hope I don't have to take them out

[Romeo India Xray]

I've just had 3 implants and a mouth full of crowns and bridges!!!. What happens there I wonder.

Simple - you remove your head and put THAT through the scanner

[llondel]

Well-endowed women will have an issue with all the metal hooks in their support networks. I seem to remember that US airports had their detectors at high sensitivity and were finding such things.

[Alwaysairbus]

It's working really well... instead of preventing queues with searches it's causing queues of people putting their belts on.

I would suggest standing by the machine putting your belt on to cause maximum effect whilst waiting for you now secure mobile phone and leatherman to come through the xray machine to cause maximum chaos so that the idiots who think up these ever increasing stupid ideas can come up with something else.

:D well done DoT and BAA for increasing the ever more apparent stress to airline workers. When a mistake is made and there's a hull loss due to a stressed individual making a mistake i hope they come forward and take some of the blame along with the CAA and our Labour government... somehow i think not.

[spannersatKL]

I assume that belts are an issue only at Crawley International and they are OK at Essex Intenational, Hounslow Heath and other spanish owned departure points?

Cosistancy....wonderful eh!

[744rules]

I was told some x-ray machines also bleep at random, whether you wear metal or not. Some security people allow you to go through a second time, others start searching anyhow.

[Fournier Boy]

I find it differs on which gate you use at LGW I can walk through Queens gate and 9 times out of 10 the change in my pocket won't set off the detector. Tower gate on the other hand, even the smallest amount of change sets off the detector.

My most interesting one to date was a small sachet (well under 100ml) of cough syrup which I had in my pocket. Didn't think that it has aluminium foil on the inside and they went ape sh*t at me! Full pockets out, check my credit cards and passport for razor blades (even though I carry a leatherman with two lockable blades on it......) Its such a shame the staff canteen at LGW isn't airside.... long live Toni's Burger Wagon!

[kingair9]

My issue is the boneheads who watch 50 people in front of them go through and then:

Look puzzled when asked if they have a laptop
get out their laptops out of their wee tumi bag
remove their coats
find the liter of evian water in their bag from the previous flight
try to drink all the water but give up after 10 seconds
have an argument
go through
come back
remove their belt that sets off the detectors most times they travel
blah blah blah....

You forgot to be forced at some airports to remove shoes, put on plastic "foot gloves" and put the stinkers through the machines.

Although I am generally against the new generation of scanners which show people "naked" - last week in DME they worked damn fast. Go into the cabin, stand on pre-marked spots and raise your hands. Then the machine drives once around you (whoever had an x-ray done at a modern denstis knows what I mean) - and that's it.

I was allowed to leave my shoes and belt on, had a lighter in my pocket and still was allowed to leave. And it was NOT that they were not watching their screens, others had to unpack their pockets.

[PT6Driver]

Stop complaining - this is a 'security' matter so no discussion allowed. :oh:
Anyway it is just a temporary arangement until everyone has bought their ID cards and we are all sooo secure and safe!
Then the real special security procedures can begin (for your safety and conveniance of course):hmm:

[Kiwi red]

This has been the norm at STN for the last month or so, it's becoming ridiculous we might as well strip off and go through!
I have a titanium watch it never sets off the alarms so the question then needs to be asked what is the point of metal detectors.

[theothersimon]

I'm going to risk getting this one deleted, but this is all public domain.

Magnetometers (the arches you walk through) detect mainly ferrous steel. They can detect other metals but at much lower sensitivity. The spring steel wires in bras are detected, stainless steel watches are not. Titanium is very hard to detect.

The arches are set to randomly tigger about every hundred people, whether you have metal on you or not.

As Bruce Schneider points out - while the worst penalty you get for being caught with a knife, is having it confiscated - there is no reason to not keep trying until you suceed. It's all theatre.

Simon.

[Jean-Lill]

Instead of complaining about security and referring to it as a theatre, perhaps someone could come up with a different method of making the aircraft safe for the pax and crew.

We all get annoyed about having to wait in the long queues to be security screened and having to remove shoes and belts etc. Surely that is better than allowing the maniacs to board our aircraft and put all our lives at risk.

Any suggestions for alternative methods of making air travel a safe mode of transport without having to go through the 'theatre' ?

[Raggyman]

Security is all for show, and really what does it stop?

If security was so good, why are there people being detected with Drugs after a long haul flight, and they are the ones who get caught after the flight, how many get through! Could have quiet easily have been something else, although the ticking could probably give it away.

I spose it is a good thing that these "imaginary friend" believers aren't that clever. Weapons can be made out of absolutely anything, it doesn't have to be metal.

Security is a tough job, especially when you have to pretend that you are doing a good job. It is a bit of a joke, but atleast it stops the grannies from taking on knitting needles, cause you never know when a grannie is going to turn on you.

The UK would have to be worse, you have people who I believe aren't the best qualified checking passports of people. As long as you have a good copy of a passport and the name on the ticket matches it, you are on the flight. Absolutely no-one from the passport office making sure you are who you say you are and checking the passport to make sure that it is 100% an issued article. This only happens when you come into the country.

If you are Mr Terrorist reading this, then I hope that all your promised virgins aren't hairy blokes. Who's to say that there are any there? If I were you would definitely want a down payment first.

[spannersatKL]

Who's to say they don't want hairy blokes??? May be that's where we are all going wrong and the offer is not nubile young ladies....just going out to get a life!!

[jodeliste]

I carry a bag when I go to france and in that I have had a penknife which has never yet been detected in 10 years also if you have one of the cases with built in wheels they have an internal metal framework, I have just for interest put a stanley knife blade (box cutter) alongside this frame and sure enough its not detected.
Its the usual story with all these rules they only affect the law abiding, anyone who wants to circumvent them will easily find a way. Security is mostly done for effect.

[hotmetal]

Why on earth would you want to do that? If it gets found you are going to have some serious questions to answer all to prove to yourself you can do it. Not very wise IMHO.

[ChristiaanJ]

Why on earth hijack another airliner?
It's so old hat....
And it already has done all the economic and other damage you could wish for.

Why not sail up the Thames, put a couple dozen gunmen ashore, and attack Canary Wharf, the Tower, the City, Harrods and the Tate (while you're at it).

If you use an old barge, you can also set up a whole lot of pre-targeted mortars under a tarp. And then finally blow up the barge in front of the Houses of Parliament.

CJ

[Raggyman]

There should be a couple of que's...

Line up in the appropriate lane if you....
Lane 1) "Believe in Imaginary Friends"
Lane 2) "Think that you should be checked, cause you think you might be a terrorist, but not sure"
Lane 3) "If you believe in security, because you think it achieves something" (special one for security staff and police people)
Lane 4) "if you are a grannie"
Lane 5) "If you are none of the above - straight through.

[Raggyman]

Who's to say they don't want hairy blokes??? May be that's where we are all going wrong and the offer is not nubile young ladies....just going out to get a life!!

Ah yeah, sorry... :)

[Paphian]

My son recently came through LHR, not thinking with a 250ml shower gel in his little plastic bag, he was waived through. If I take my belt off my trousers will fall down, that will cause a stir, will I be arrested for indecent exposure, as I was ordered to take my belt off.

[OFSO]

My wife (a sculptress) was stopped at GRN this year with a sculpting tool in her handbag - about 6" long, blunt, rounded spatular ends.

The Guardia said it was obvious the tool didn't represent any sort of threat and she could take it on board.

However she knew that the attitude for the return journey at STN would be completely different and as the tool was very expensive the Guardia brought her over to me (waiting to see her depart) and she handed it back to me.

Consistency, anyone ?

[ChristiaanJ]

"... the Guardia brought her over to me (waiting to see her depart) and she handed it back to me.
Consistency, anyone ?"
Consistency? Of course not... what on earth do you expect?

But I take my hat off to that Guardia who had the courtesy to solve a potential problem in the simplest way possible.

CJ

[ve3id]

Why on earth hijack another airliner?
It's so old hat....


That's old hat too, except guy Fawkes was caught and punished.

Just goes to show that terrorism is not a new problem!

[GAZIN]

Passengers will no doubt be reassured to know that all air-side staff are subject to the same ridiculous security procedures. :rolleyes:
I am not sure what I could hide under my belt, that can't be hidden in the large van that I am driving! :ugh:
When I arrive at the aircraft to carry out important safety checks I shouldn't still be thinking about this nonsense & neither should the flight crew preparing for the flight. IMO it's only a matter of time before this distraction contributes to an accident.
Reasonable security should be welcomed by everyone.

[Egerton Flyer]

Why all the fuss?

I learned a long time ago that if you put your mobile phone, coins and watch in your hand luggage and remove your belt before you get to the x-ray machine it makes life a lot easier. How hard is that?
It takes a little time to sort yourself out after but not as much as having to go through the arch again, only to be frisked.
You know it makes sense;)

E.F

[AvroLincoln]

Who says stainless steel is not detectable? I had a heart bypass operation some years ago and they apparently held my sternum/ribs back together with stainless steel wire - which set off a highly sensitive metal detector at an airport in Wisconsin 7 months later. On removing my shirt I was able to satisfy security by revealing a rather large scar!

[makintw]

OFSO good to see someone using discretion.

I wish I could say the same at Brisbane where my 3 year old son had his souvenir children's Moomin fork, spoon and chopstick set in a plastic case in his bag along with nibbles, nappies and toys.

Now he's minus the fork :ugh:

[RYR_Jockey]

I thought belt removal has been the norm for quite a while now!? It certainly has in a lot of the airports I go through.

[MTOW]

One of my more memorable experiences was having to remove my shoes to walk through the X-Ray machine at Lagos.

The floor was... shall we say... 'Africa'.

[cyclenorm]

I'm glad they are confiscating those knitting needles - Grannie might be planning to knit an Afghan! Wouldn't it be great if you could choose to fly an airline that doesn't allow ANY carry-on bags? With swipe-card keys, plastic belt buckle and sandals you could board the plane in record time.

[Massey AvMan]

If security was so good, why are there people being detected with Drugs after a long haul flight, and they are the ones who get caught after the flight, how many get through

Security is not looking for drugs! And they are not going to be detected going through a metal detector or with a wand unless concealed in foil. Customs screen for drugs on arrival :)

Security is a tough job, especially when you have to pretend that you are doing a good job. It is a bit of a joke, but atleast it stops the grannies from taking on knitting needles, cause you never know when a grannie is going to turn on you.


For those who think security is just for show perhaps you should contact your local Security provider and ask to view the assortment of knives, weapons, dangerous goods and other items taken from pax (including grannies!). It is generally not the job of the Security Officer to make a decision on intent. And remember, at some point "grannie" is going to go to the loo and unless she takes her needles with her, the baddie sitting next to her now has them!

Security Officers don't make the rules and don't always agree with them, but it is their job to abide by them. No-one wants their face plastered all over CNN as being the person who let the bomb/knife etc through. Some of the "morons" & "jackasses" at my local airport are ex-forces, teachers, nurses, cabin crew and even pilots.:) Oh, and of course a few of them are morons & jackasses!

[D.Lamination]

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

On a more serious note here is an excellent article from the NY times last year:

New York Times Monday, December 31, 2007
December 28, 2007, 6:52 pm
The Airport Security Follies
By PATRICK SMITH
Six years after the terrorist attacks of 2001, airport security remains a theater of the absurd. The changes put in place following the September 11th catastrophe have been drastic, and largely of two kinds: those practical and effective, and those irrational, wasteful and pointless.
The first variety have taken place almost entirely behind the scenes. Explosives scanning for checked luggage, for instance, was long overdue and is perhaps the most welcome addition. Unfortunately, at concourse checkpoints all across America, the madness of passenger screening continues in plain view. It began with pat-downs and the senseless confiscation of pointy objects. Then came the mandatory shoe removal, followed in the summer of 2006 by the prohibition of liquids and gels. We can only imagine what is next.
To understand what makes these measures so absurd, we first need to revisit the morning of September 11th, and grasp exactly what it was the 19 hijackers so easily took advantage of. Conventional wisdom says the terrorists exploited a weakness in airport security by smuggling aboard box-cutters. What they actually exploited was a weakness in our mindset — a set of presumptions based on the decades-long track record of hijackings.
In years past, a takeover meant hostage negotiations and standoffs; crews were trained in the concept of “passive resistance.” All of that changed forever the instant American Airlines Flight 11 collided with the north tower. What weapons the 19 men possessed mattered little; the success of their plan relied fundamentally on the element of surprise. And in this respect, their scheme was all but guaranteed not to fail.
For several reasons — particularly the awareness of passengers and crew — just the opposite is true today. Any hijacker would face a planeload of angry and frightened people ready to fight back. Say what you want of terrorists, they cannot afford to waste time and resources on schemes with a high probability of failure. And thus the September 11th template is all but useless to potential hijackers.
No matter that a deadly sharp can be fashioned from virtually anything found on a plane, be it a broken wine bottle or a snapped-off length of plastic, we are content wasting billions of taxpayer dollars and untold hours of labor in a delusional attempt to thwart an attack that has already happened, asked to queue for absurd lengths of time, subject to embarrassing pat-downs and loss of our belongings.
The folly is much the same with respect to the liquids and gels restrictions, introduced two summers ago following the breakup of a London-based cabal that was planning to blow up jetliners using liquid explosives. Allegations surrounding the conspiracy were revealed to substantially embellished. In an August, 2006 article in the New York Times, British officials admitted that public statements made following the arrests were overcooked, inaccurate and “unfortunate.” The plot’s leaders were still in the process of recruiting and radicalizing would-be bombers. They lacked passports, airline tickets and, most critical of all, they had been unsuccessful in actually producing liquid explosives. Investigators later described the widely parroted report that up to ten U.S airliners had been targeted as “speculative” and “exaggerated.”
Among first to express serious skepticism about the bombers’ readiness was Thomas C. Greene, whose essay in The Register explored the extreme difficulty of mixing and deploying the types of binary explosives purportedly to be used. Green conferred with Professor Jimmie C. Oxley, an explosives specialist who has closely studied the type of deadly cocktail coveted by the London plotters.
“The notion that deadly explosives can be cooked up in an airplane lavatory is pure fiction,” Greene told me during an interview. “A handy gimmick for action movies and shows like ‘24.’ The reality proves disappointing: it’s rather awkward to do chemistry in an airplane toilet. Nevertheless, our official protectors and deciders respond to such notions instinctively, because they’re familiar to us: we’ve all seen scenarios on television and in the cinema. This, incredibly, is why you can no longer carry a bottle of water onto a plane.”
The threat of liquid explosives does exist, but it cannot be readily brewed from the kinds of liquids we have devoted most of our resources to keeping away from planes. Certain benign liquids, when combined under highly specific conditions, are indeed dangerous. However, creating those conditions poses enormous challenges for a saboteur.
“I would not hesitate to allow that liquid explosives can pose a danger,” Greene added, recalling Ramzi Yousef’s 1994 detonation of a small nitroglycerine bomb aboard Philippine Airlines Flight 434. The explosion was a test run for the so-called “Project Bojinka,” an Al Qaeda scheme to simultaneously destroy a dozen widebody airliners over the Pacific Ocean. “But the idea that confiscating someone’s toothpaste is going to keep us safe is too ridiculous to entertain.”
Yet that’s exactly what we’ve been doing. The three-ounce container rule is silly enough — after all, what’s to stop somebody from carrying several small bottles each full of the same substance — but consider for a moment the hypocrisy of T.S.A.’s confiscation policy. At every concourse checkpoint you’ll see a bin or barrel brimming with contraband containers taken from passengers for having exceeded the volume limit. Now, the assumption has to be that the materials in those containers are potentially hazardous. If not, why were they seized in the first place? But if so, why are they dumped unceremoniously into the trash? They are not quarantined or handed over to the bomb squad; they are simply thrown away. The agency seems to be saying that it knows these things are harmless. But it’s going to steal them anyway, and either you accept it or you don’t fly.
But of all the contradictions and self-defeating measures T.S.A. has come up with, possibly none is more blatantly ludicrous than the policy decreeing that pilots and flight attendants undergo the same x-ray and metal detector screening as passengers. What makes it ludicrous is that tens of thousands of other airport workers, from baggage loaders and fuelers to cabin cleaners and maintenance personnel, are subject only to occasional random screenings when they come to work.
These are individuals with full access to aircraft, inside and out. Some are airline employees, though a high percentage are contract staff belonging to outside companies. The fact that crew members, many of whom are former military fliers, and all of whom endured rigorous background checks prior to being hired, are required to take out their laptops and surrender their hobby knives, while a caterer or cabin cleaner sidesteps the entire process and walks onto a plane unimpeded, nullifies almost everything our T.S.A. minders have said and done since September 11th, 2001. If there is a more ringing let-me-get-this-straight scenario anywhere in the realm of airport security, I’d like to hear it.
I’m not suggesting that the rules be tightened for non-crew members so much as relaxed for all accredited workers. Which perhaps urges us to reconsider the entire purpose of airport security:
The truth is, regardless of how many pointy tools and shampoo bottles we confiscate, there shall remain an unlimited number of ways to smuggle dangerous items onto a plane. The precise shape, form and substance of those items is irrelevant. We are not fighting materials, we are fighting the imagination and cleverness of the would-be saboteur.
Thus, what most people fail to grasp is that the nuts and bolts of keeping terrorists away from planes is not really the job of airport security at all. Rather, it’s the job of government agencies and law enforcement. It’s not very glamorous, but the grunt work of hunting down terrorists takes place far off stage, relying on the diligent work of cops, spies and intelligence officers. Air crimes need to be stopped at the planning stages. By the time a terrorist gets to the airport, chances are it’s too late.
In the end, I’m not sure which is more troubling, the inanity of the existing regulations, or the average American’s acceptance of them and willingness to be humiliated. These wasteful and tedious protocols have solidified into what appears to be indefinite policy, with little or no opposition. There ought to be a tide of protest rising up against this mania. Where is it? At its loudest, the voice of the traveling public is one of grumbled resignation. The op-ed pages are silent, the pundits have nothing meaningful to say.
The airlines, for their part, are in something of a bind. The willingness of our carriers to allow flying to become an increasingly unpleasant experience suggests a business sense of masochistic capitulation. On the other hand, imagine the outrage among security zealots should airlines be caught lobbying for what is perceived to be a dangerous abrogation of security and responsibility — even if it’s not. Carriers caught plenty of flack, almost all of it unfair, in the aftermath of September 11th. Understandably, they no longer want that liability.
As for Americans themselves, I suppose that it’s less than realistic to expect street protests or airport sit-ins from citizen fliers, and maybe we shouldn’t expect too much from a press and media that have had no trouble letting countless other injustices slip to the wayside. And rather than rethink our policies, the best we’ve come up with is a way to skirt them — for a fee, naturally — via schemes like Registered Traveler. Americans can now pay to have their personal information put on file just to avoid the hassle of airport security. As cynical as George Orwell ever was, I doubt he imagined the idea of citizens offering up money for their own subjugation.
How we got to this point is an interesting study in reactionary politics, fear-mongering and a disconcerting willingness of the American public to accept almost anything in the name of “security.” Conned and frightened, our nation demands not actual security, but security spectacle. And although a reasonable percentage of passengers, along with most security experts, would concur such theater serves no useful purpose, there has been surprisingly little outrage. In that regard, maybe we’ve gotten exactly the system we deserve.

[Alwaysairbus]

Massey,
We're not talking about what pax try to smuggle through...
The point is that after 5 year CRC checks on UK nationals ONLY working at UK airports (and in the near future DNA records and biometric ID cards) aviation professionals are required to go through the same degrading experience every day, sometimes numerous times.

As an engineer i can think of 100 ways to bring an aircraft down without even considering placing my shoe in the avionics bay or my belt left around the flying control cables. Pilots have the opportunity to drive the aircraft into whatever they want. Cabin crew have the opportunity to visit the flight deck and poison the pilots with their coffee. Why doesn't this happen..? Because we're all professionals. It would be appreciated if the powers that be would recognise this.

The annoying thing is that it is just lip service... how easy would it be to make a molotov cocktail out of a glass duty free bottle of alcohol, a sock and a lighter (or matches) on board if someone wanted to but these items are all available on board accessible to everyone over 18. The list goes on.

D. lamination... excellent article which truely hits the nail on the head (excuse the pun!)

[Massey AvMan]

Alwaysairbus,


The point is that after 5 year CRC checks on UK nationals ONLY working at UK airports (and in the near future DNA records and biometric ID cards) aviation professionals are required to go through the same degrading experience every day, sometimes numerous times.


Where do we then draw the line? Pilots, crew, ground staff, engineers, caterers, cleaners, fuelers, who should get screened and who shouldn't, who do we consider "professional" and beyond intentionally interferring with a flight?

Checks done for ID cards don't weed out the terrorists as generally terrorists don't have criminal records. More worrying are temporary ID cards issued to new starts, short term employees and contractors etc ... no police, employment checks etc. Around here that can take up to 3 months and all the while that person has access to aircraft!

I think the word "degrading" is a bit melodramatic, that's the sort of thing a pax who hasn't flown for 10 years uses, not a regular who knows pretty much exactly what's expected. But I don't deny it can be an inconvenience and irritating.:)

I do get your point about an engineer or pilot being able to bring an aircraft down and so too can a caterer, etc..

[Ladusvala]

Massey AvMan,

You ask where to draw the line, why not ask yourself who can bring down an airliner without smuggling anything through airport security and you will have a good answer.

One thing you have missed is the fact that most of us pilots are not asking to be totally excluded from screening, we just want it to be sensible i.e. screen us for guns and bombs, not nailclippers and water.

How do you suppose a caterer can bring down an airliner without smuggling anything through security?

[autobrake3]

Silly, random new belts off rule also applied at STN. In winter I wear a sweater which covers my belt, I therefore don't bother to remove it, security don't notice so situation normal for me. The farce continues unabated at our expence.

[primreamer]

When going through the Concorde Hse security point at LGW I've also noticed that there now appears to be a security dept "suit" in residence throughout the day. Whether he/she is an observer or enforcer I'm not sure because they don't seem to do or say much. I'd like to think that they are ensuring security staff are playing by the same rules that we are but who knows.
Anyone else noticed that the "shoe exemption" cards have disappeared too? Obviously the shoes that I wear were considered unsafe so they were X-rayed, fair enough. Then they were deemed safe again, I was given a card telling me as much and could keep them on through security, great. Now they're not safe again and have to be X-rayed once more, strange..........

[Litebulbs]

I have been told that the shoe exemption card was removed because a member of staff asked for one and was given one. The DfT inspectors watching this happen thought that this was unacceptable, so removed the cards.

[Xorthis]

Reminds me of when I flew from Southampton to Paris a few months ago... I unfortunately ripped a hole in the crotch of my jeans and asked the assistant in WH Smiths if they had a travel sewing kit, knowing full well it was unlikely. She told me that they did not, however the airside store may do.

So after clearing security (the usual belt off, laptop out, detector alarm then a frisk), I find the Smiths and ask the guy in the store. Right away he started talking with a raised voice at me "Of course we don't, needles are banned and you aren't allowed to carry them!". This amused my wife and I and we tried to make a joke out of the silly regulations today.

Bad move, the assistant almost shouted at us "It's not silly, you know that terrorists used needles to bomb the WTC on 9/11???"

At that point we just walked away, still with a hole in my jeans but amused with the image of terrorists holding up an aircraft with a sewing needle.

(And yes, I know that he said 'bombed', 'not hijacked aircraft'. :rolleyes: )

[hawkeye]

Soon after Bonfire night my friends went home to Spain with fireworks in the wife's handbag. Security must have been too busy with the belts and toothpaste to notice the bangers.
At least the fireworks were not as big as the flares we carry in the liferafts.

[Massey AvMan]

pilots are not asking to be totally excluded from screening, we just want it to be sensible i.e. screen us for guns and bombs, not nailclippers and water.


In NZ we don't take nailclippers. But, I have to ask, as a pilot do you intend to be clipping your nails while flying? If not, putting them in your hold luggage or leaving them at home would seem a simple solution.


How do you suppose a caterer can bring down an airliner without smuggling anything through security?


I was thinking along the lines of what 'Alwaysairbus' said about crew being able to poison pilots and therefore that being even easier for caterers. And as there is a high turnover of staff in these establishments I would suggest a lot of them have not been fully vetted when they start and for some time after.

On the LAG's front, I believe there is technology underway, that will be able to detect liquid explosives during the bag x-ray process which would remove the need to limit LAG's or display them. Good news for all!

[Beer_n_Tabs]

I recently posed the question at BHX T2 Staff Gate (very grubby looking to say the least, hardly hygienic) asking what would be the outcome should I (a) tread on something very sharp or (b) pick up a foot infection whilst passing through the archway, being as there is no form of protective matting on the bare vinyl flooring or disposable foot protection offered, should I be requested to remove my shoes. Needless to say I was met by blank stares and assorted 'errs' but no direct answer. I rest my case. In fact on a previous occasion I posed this question and was told 'stop being awkward, just get your shoes off!' Oh the joys of contracted-out security! And yes, I did report the incident straight to the officer's superiors. No doubt the obligatory 'smack on the hand, you naughty boy' was administered! :ugh: :ugh:


Seriously? You said that? and then you reported the incident STRAIGHT to the officers superiors?

Wow....how very sad and pathetic.

:ugh: <<<<< there... that one is for you

[Ladusvala]

Massey AvMan,
I should have known that you would focus on the petty details of my post and avoid answering my main message.

I think you got my point but I will answer anyway.
Personally, I´m not away from home more than 6 days at a time for work but I have friends who are away more than 2 weeks, so a nailclipper can come in handy also for pilots even though they don´t use it while flying. Besides, it´s a normal component of your toiletries.

So you mean that a caterer doesn´t have to smuggle the poison through security?
How can a cleaner bring down an airliner without smugling anything through security?

Do you still have a problem with where to draw the line?

What do you think of the sensible approach of screening pilots for real threats only, like bombs and guns?

[Massey AvMan]

So you mean that a caterer doesn´t have to smuggle the poison through security?
How can a cleaner bring down an airliner without smugling anything through security?


I was meaning that food could be tampered with prior to arriving at the airport. Our cleaners and caterers enter in vehicles via the apron and get wanded for metals going onto the aircraft (US flights only) but still have access to their vehicles which are only searched on a very random basis so could be concealing anything!

NZ is not a high risk region and therefore does things differently than other countries. We don't screen some of our domestic flights at all (hence the recent hijack attempt and stabbing of pilots!) and none of our domestic flights are subject to LAGs restrictions.

Again, put nailclippers in hold luggage, they are not required for the duration of your flight.


What do you think of the sensible approach of screening pilots for real threats only, like bombs and guns?


I agree 100%!

[Ex Cargo Clown]

So you can't get anything dodgy airside ?

Does anyone know what "listed cargo" is ?

Do they x-ray every pallet at security ?

Anyone know how mail is screened ?

Airside security is an absolute joke, as for what you see in terminals......

[beerdrinker]

MA,

A lot of airline crews do not have hold luggage - even those going away for a week or so. It is standard practise to load one's baggage (wheely bag) in the cockpit or cabin.

[call100]

Isn't it about time we all either accepted the fact that we all have to go through the pointless sham called security screening and get on with it or make a stand. It seems that no one is prepared to do anything (Other than complain on here) about it.
It's an occupational hazard. Most people pass quickly through and with a little thought get no hassle.
If you complain to the Airport Authority they blame DFT, they blame TRANSEC, they blame the Government, they blame everyone else.
If you complain on here nothing happens except internal arguing and nothing gets resolved.
Just a thought. Not meant to insult anyone....:)

[Boss Raptor]

I work (landside usually) at an EU Eastern European capital city airport - I have just come back from seeing the head of security of the national border guard directorate who do passenger security at the terminal

Why?

Well I am (pax) security wise and security friendly I dont even wear a belt when going thru as a passenger and take my watch off and put it in my hand luggage etc. etc. - I am clean at LGW, LHR, PRG and on and on...

Consequently I almost never 'bleep/ and set the security machine off at any airport (as I have no metal on me) - the numb nuts at this particular airport have a policy of searching you quite rightly if the machine does 'beep'...and wait for it...also search you deliberately if you dont make it 'beep' as of course it must be wrong! (and associated long lines waiting to pass security as they end up searching everyone)

What the :mad:!?

Yes I regularly point out what a load of :mad: they are and have finally vented/expressed my displeasure at the highest level!

[Ladusvala]

Massey AvMan,

You write:
"I was meaning that food could be tampered with prior to arriving at the airport. Our cleaners and caterers enter in vehicles via the apron and get wanded for metals going onto the aircraft (US flights only) but still have access to their vehicles which are only searched on a very random basis so could be concealing anything!"

My question is: Then why not search the vehicles instead of cofiscating my water?

You also write:
"Again, put nailclippers in hold luggage, they are not required for the duration of your flight."

If you mean that pilots should check in their bagage for every flight that´s impossible because very many times, pilots fly a round trip and then change aircraft during a ground stop of 30 minutes, there´s no time to check in
bagage and retrieve it at the bagage area between flights.

Besides, if the nailclipper is in the hold luggage when a pilot goes through screening, who knows what he will do with the dangerous nailclipper once he is airside?

This thread should be merged with the already existing thread:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/282544-frustrated-pilots-security-screening.html

I recommend that you read that, Massey AvMan, that way you will know a lot more about why pilots complain about todays security show.
Probably, you will find that most of your questions have been answered in that thread.

[Munnyspinner]

Look, it's not about needles or nailclippers, belts or smelly shoes. The secuirty regime is about how the regulated pricing structure works and how Airports make money.

The regulator allows BAA to make a level of return on their investment in airport infrastructure. This includes the machines and staffing costs (uniforms training etc. etc. ) i.e the more they spend the more they can recover through airport charges - up to a point. And how can airlines suggest that lower security provision is a good thing?

As BAA were found to have under invested in security and have a track record of failures in this department they decided to go OTT in making up for past indiscretions - with the full backing of DfT, CAA et al. One of the biggest problems for BAA is mixing arriving and departing passengers - a move they adopted to maximise retail revenues.

So, next time you are being castigated for forgetting that bottle of Evian from the day before nestled in the bottom of your bag. Don't feel guilty that you may look like a terror suspect. Feel proud that you are keeping some pretty grumpy individuals in a uniform and a job. And let's be realsitic - what else could they do?

The secuity comb is a simple deterrent and a means of allying fear in some pax. Unfortunately, the way it is managed seems to piss everyone off and give the impression that any tom dick or harry with a toothpick and a bottle of water is a threat to national security.

Oh, and why do the operatives as ALL airports stand and chat about their personal life, disputes with colleagues and what they are going to eat for supper whilst they should actually be paying a bit more attention to getting the job done?

The sad fact is that there is no end of equipment available airside to any terrorist, acting alone or with others, that would allow them to potentially disrupt any flight or worse. At LGW, between Boots, WDF, harrods and Dixons, I am sure any one with some knowledge and practical skills could probably cause much more havoc on an aircraft than someone wielding a pair of nail scissors! Incidentally, evena rolled up in lfligt magazine is a dangerous weapon in the wrong hands! Beware the meals, they are lethal too!

[Bealzebub]

For the definitive answer as to why it is necessary and the possible consequences, I would ask you to watch This trailer from 50 seconds in for the next 10 seconds. (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TpUeCscFmZc&feature=related)

[ChristiaanJ]

Bealzebub,
I would also advice watching the last few seconds.....

[Out Of Trim]

When going through the Concorde Hse security point at LGW I've also noticed that there now appears to be a security dept "suit" in residence throughout the day. Whether he/she is an observer or enforcer I'm not sure because they don't seem to do or say much. I'd like to think that they are ensuring security staff are playing by the same rules that we are but who knows.
Anyone else noticed that the "shoe exemption" cards have disappeared too? Obviously the shoes that I wear were considered unsafe so they were X-rayed, fair enough. Then they were deemed safe again, I was given a card telling me as much and could keep them on through security, great. Now they're not safe again and have to be X-rayed once more, strange


Well, those self same " shoe exemption cards" have migrated to the Staff Entrance in the main South Terminal into the departure lounge! The trouble is, if you are one selected to remove your boots/shoes then there is very little space to do so; thus holding up the ques of staff trying to get to work air-side on-time!

Plus remove your belt instructions making everyone have to hold their trousers up.. Perhaps we should all go and buy a nice set of braces! :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[lasernigel]

In Poland at the moment. Went Man-FRA-WAR today
On getting to Frankfurt plane late and as usual bussed to terminal.Had to get to A22 and not much time. Had to go through passport control twice then security. Got at gate rushed and pretty flustered. On asking Lufthansa staff why transfers are so difficult, got a very arrogant reply saying that if you English had signed up to everything that the rest of the Countries had, e.g. The Schenigen agreement it wouldn't be that hard. "It is for your own safety". WTF why are we treated like this????:ugh::ugh:

[D.Lamination]

:}:}:}

The last couple of minutes relate to airport security but the whole thing is funny!!
YouTube - Maz Jobrani (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=fYlaIxNX01Q) :E