LHR new security dictat

[Consol]

This is interesting. The powers that be in BAA LHR have decided that it you do not remove all you liquids/gels in the 100ml containers, plastic bag etc you will be forced to 'voluntarily abandon' them. It seems the BAA are convicting crew of an offence and imposing a penalty. I have great suspicions that this may be illegal. Apart from the idiocy of taking toothpaste away from people who fly large jets (I know we've been there before) isn't it just extraordinary how that BAA seem determined to go after crew?


"In November 2006, European Union Member States introduced regulations to restrict the
volume of liquids that may be taken airside by passengers and staff, including aircrew.
1.2. So that the screening of all staff including aircrew at control posts is consistent with passenger
screening the re-packing of liquid items into hold baggage after screening (i.e. once airside)
will no longer be permitted.
2. This notice tells you that:
2.1. From 00.01 on the 1stMay 2009 airline crew will NO longer be allowed to repack liquid items
that are either over 100ml or not presented in the regulation one litre clear resealable bag into
their hold baggage after passing through control post screening points.
3. Advice for airline crew - Before arriving at a security control post
3.1. To prevent the unnecessary loss of liquid items at the search area crew should ensure
they have followed these instructions before entering the control post ;
3.1.1. Each liquid item must be in a container of 100ml or less and this, in turn, must fit
comfortably into a resealable clear plastic one litre bag. (excluding essential/
prescription medication)
3.1.2. Any liquid item that does not fit into the one litre bag or is above the maximum 100ml
should already be packed in hold baggage.
3.1.3. Crew found to be carrying containers in their cabin baggage, that do not have their size
clearly marked but are thought to be significantly larger than 100ml, will have to
voluntarily abandon the relevant item(s) for disposal at the search area.
3.1.4. The liquids bag must be presented separately and outside of the cabin bag
3.1.5. The liquids bag will be examined by X-ray. It can be placed into the same tray as hand
baggage, a laptop, personal belongings or clothing. However, the view of the liquids
bag must not be obscured by placing it under or on top of these items.
3.1.6. Crew should be aware that bags containing liquids will be subjected to search if
rejected by any member of the screening staff or as part of the random search
requirement.
3.2. Any loose liquid items (except essential medication) not in the single one litre bag, regardless
of size, must be voluntarily abandoned if found in the cabin baggage during or after X-ray
screening."

[eagle21]

In one word: pathetic

[windytoo]

In another word, why?

[ground_star]

They can only implement this if the crew allow it to happen. Let a few flights get delay \ canx because of it & see how quickly they abandon the idea.

I, like the OP, suspect this is not legal as the legal remit of BAAs "security" droids to is prevent anything entering an aircraft which would endanger its safety. Crew toothpaste isn't going to bring the aircraft out of the sky!

[brakedwell]

Crew toothpaste isn't going to bring the aircraft out of the sky!

Quite, but a crew member could, so why don't they ban pilots? :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[TotalBeginner]

Any liquid item that does not fit into the one litre bag or is above the maximum 100ml
should already be packed in hold baggage.

Do LHL crews at LHR pass VP points with both their hold and hand/cabin baggage? If so, what's to stop you from removing liquids from your hold luggage and putting it in your cabin baggage once airside?

[A-3TWENTY]

The time will come when they will forbid airplanes to fly with control column and sidesticks.

And also the axe !!!

Reason ??Pathetic Safety ,done by fat pathetic burocrats

[sweetie76]

Do LHL crews at LHR pass VP points with both their hold and hand/cabin baggage? If so, what's to stop you from removing liquids from your hold luggage and putting it in your cabin baggage once airside?
http://static.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_online.gif http://static.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=4877082)

A very good point. This is something that may have been happening in our airline at LHR. The DfT response?:

if a cabin crew member is found to have by-passed the system in this manner, the responsible crew member ie the Captain, will have his ID permanently withdrawn.

Reasonable? Sensible? Legal? Should airline protest (it has simply rolled over)?

Discuss

[BigHitDH]

if a cabin crew member is found to have by-passed the system in this manner, the responsible crew member ie the Captain, will have his ID permanently withdrawn.

Yikes. You're going to need new eyeballs and fingerprints! :ugh:

[Caudillo]

More logic for going through security:

Firearms in the cabin are banned.
Liquids over 100mls are banned.

If I pack a firearm and it gets detected, it will be confiscated and I will not be allowed through.

If I pack a liquid over 100mls and it gets detected, it will be confiscated and I will be allowed through.

As the liquid is as forbidden as the firearm, and I have packed either with intent to carry on board, I don't see why in either case I shouldn't be prevented from passing through.

Unless of course, as things are it's tacitly understood that I mean no harm with my liquid.

Therefore if I mean no harm, why can I not take it on board?

The answer is of course that at £5.73 an hour logic doesn't come into it and that the majority of this facade is to be seen to be doing something.

[WHBM]

Although the security staff you come into contact with may be paid 5.73 an hour, there is a whole army of rather better paid bureaucracy behind them who need to justify their continued existence rather than let things stay as they are (ie be seen to be doing something all the time).

There are New Security Procedure Devisers, who are obviously out of a job if they don't devise new procedures, and there are New Security Procedure Devising Section Leaders and New Security Procedure Devising Managers in a structure above them. There are New Security Procedure Secretaries to type it all up, QA people, lawyers (inevitably), and everyone up the tree to the civil servants in Whitehall who play a part in pushing the paper round, on their own way to their index-linked gold-plated pensions, and maybe an OBE if they keep their noses clean.

Any connection between this and real, useful security controls is, of course, completely coincidental. And, of course, they expect us all to pay for it.

[captjns]

Once again the lunatics are running the asylum.:ugh::=:ugh:

[ItsAjob]

you will be forced to 'voluntarily abandon' them

How can you be forced voluntarily?

[mocoman]

You can't...

Security and Management bollox-speak.

Maybe one day they'll get brought to book on this and the security costs will reduce; until then it's a gravy-train that we all pay for either financially or in terms of (in)convenience and delay.

:ugh:

[mickjoebill]

Last year both ITN and the BBC broadcast graphic experiments where 500ml of liquid explosive puts a sizable hole in the fuselage. No doubt the bad guys were watching.

Is the limit of 100ml is a good idea?

1 x 100ml mouthwash
1 x 100ml shampoo
1 x 100ml conditioner
1 x 100ml aftershave
1 x 100ml deodorant

adds up to 1 x 500ml device.

So the current 100ml limit, although being a slight deterrent, none the less is, in reality, utterly useless in preventing a 500ml liquid explosive device being mixed on board.

If the total volume of liquid per passenger were to be limited to say 200ml this can be easily circumvented by accomplices meeting airside and passing their quota to an individual before he boards his flight.

You won't need more than one suicide terrorist to board the flight, unless gate checks are made to prevent 500ml of liquid on board, but I don't see this happening due to the high number of passengers that bring their own drinking water and it would adversely affect airside shopping sales.

The liquid bomb threat should be countered in other ways.

Given that chemicals have to be carefully mixed to create the most potent bomb it is the aircraft toilets that need to be monitored rather than over 100 million passengers a year that fly from UK airports.


Liquid Bombs Tested In Plane Fuselage. - AOL Video (http://video.aol.com/video-detail/liquid-bombs-tested-in-plane-fuselage/1692686086)

ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=5752104)

Liquid Bomb Plot On Aircraft (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-525011381725680397)

Mickjoebill

[whyisthat]

I have posted my views on this thread earlier. Its not going to change, to much money involved.

Simple solution, if LHR appears on your roster, go sick.....its not worth the hassle.

[takingover]

Perhaps this has something to do with the recent bomb threat incident at Heathrow & the fact that a cabin crew member was detained. Crew are probably now considered as much of a threat as anyone else (if they weren't already) & perhaps even more so, given their regular access to aircraft.

The thing that annoys me most is that the procedures are not even standardised across all the airports in the UK, let alone all the airports in the world. Makes a bit of a mockery of the whole thing, doesn't it?

[ChrisVJ]

"but are thought to be significantly larger than 100ml, will have to
voluntarily abandon the relevant item(s) for disposal at the search area."

Right out of 1984. It just gets worse.

[wizo]

Why not put all liquids over 100ml in your hold baggage ? End of problem.

[Lone_Ranger]

..end of whos problem?, are you suggesting a liquid bomb is safe as long as its in the hold?

With that sort of thinking, theres a job waiting for you at LHR security

[Ron & Edna Johns]

Isn't this the country that recently announced that liquid restrictions are to be LIFTED by the end of the year, with the advent of new machines? What the.......?

I can see it now: by the end of the year all passengers will be allowed take any liquids through in hand luggage. However, the idiots probably won't bother to introduce the new machine to the crew check-points ($$$,you see), so crew will still be subject to these insane restrictions.

[bizdev]

The only logical reason I can think of for these new instructions is that Crew are going to be 'punished' for not following the procedures i.e. if you do not put your stuff in the clear plastic bag - and security find it - then it will be confiscated. Pressumably the LHR crews have not been playing ball so must be taught a lesson?

Just a thought!
Bizdev

[Wellington Bomber]

wizo

Because crew who fly the plane dont check - in with the rest of the punters. They have to take their luggage with them. Also what if their are a/c swaps and your roster changes to operate a different flight and your luggage is on the other plane, can happen has happened.

[Dropline]

It could be they are just trying to speed the security process up? On many occasions I have been delayed at security while a long haul flight crew passing through in front of me spends ages transferring items from one bag to another to satisfy the idiotic hold/cabin baggage rules. Maybe they're just trying to encourage(?) crew to have the right sized bottles in the right place BEFORE going through security to save holding up everyone else in the queue while you repack your luggage? I'm not defending the stupid rules - it still pisses me off I have to buy milk and water etc at BAA airside prices - but it could be they are trying to improve the often long and painful security process for the rest of us?

[sweetie76]

I think everyone has forgotten who the enemy are.

Wrong end of the telescope.........

The DfT is managing to do what HItler and the Gestapo couldn't: cow us all into submission for fear of being non-pc.

Try getting the lady in charge of the DfT to speak to any pilot group, including BALPA, and have a sensible conversation.

She refuses.

Airlines are scared to make representations for fear of repercussions. This whole Security thing has gained a momentum all of its own over the years. It is the only growth industry in aviation (as a %age of GDP).

Oh, for an Ivory Tower of my own.

[sweetie76]

I'm sure someone at LHR has got wind of the fact that crews are by-passing the system: they are claiming their bag is going in the hold on the Manifest whilst actually putting it in the cabin (with an oversize bottle of shampoo etc).

The only way to police this is to have Security check the contents of cabin bags at the aeroplane. I would imagine even the DfT can't justify the extra manpower required for the job. SO, the onus has been placed on the Captains with the implicit threat of loss of (ID) livelihood if someone actually succeeds in by-passing the system.

How are the DfT going to police this unless a Security person physically examines the contents of each cabin bag before boarding? It is not the Captain's responsibility to examine the contents of cabin-crew baggage.

[boardingpass]

In continental Europe, the liquid restrictions are in place for pax, but crew do not need to pull out all their liquids from their cabin and/or hold bags. I feel very sorry for my colleagues that operate out of the UK.

[helen-damnation]

So as someone who lives abroad and goes to the shops in the UK, do I now have to abandon my shopping at the crew check?
Can I put my suitcase through the terminal check-in along with the pax? :ugh:

[SLFguy]

Wizo
"Why not put all liquids over 100ml in your hold baggage ? End of problem."


Lone_Ranger
"..end of whos problem?, are you suggesting a liquid bomb is safe as long as its in the hold?

With that sort of thinking, theres a job waiting for you at LHR security"


This response has made me giddy on so many levels.

[Bongodog1964]

I really can't see what people are moaning about.

You have to put your liquid items in a bag, and place them in a tray for scanning, just the same as the passengers.

It's taken longer to moan about it, than to comply.

As to the use of the phrase "voluntarily surrender them", that's quite simple as well, either you volunteer to surrender them, or you are denied access through security, and can't work.

[wiggy]

Where's the fire? Why is this suddenly "news"? I thought, obviously incorrectly, that those of us operating out of LHR (certainly those of us working through T5 and before that Compass Centre ;))had been subject to this ******, including confiscation, for a few years now.

It has caused a lot of grief amongst the Short Haul Community because for lots of good reasons they generally don't check-in baggage.. and those of us Long Haul types who do use a suitcase stick the bigger stuff inside that ( e.g. Greecian 2000, monster tubes of Toothpaste and the odd bottle of Bolly for the room party :cool:) without any probs ( apart from the risk of breaking the Bolly of course :{ :{ ).

[Jerricho]

Ahhhh HA!!

I can still buy my 1 litre bottle of overproof, flamable booze in Duty Free and take it on board..........that would make a great old fire if I poured it all over something (or someone) and lit it!!!:D:D :mad:

[rubik101]

I have to couch this in very vague terms or it will be deleted, again.
I think I want to blow up some innocent bystanders in an aviation environment.
I know, I will take my bomb with me to the airport and get in the crowded queue for security.
Need I say more?
For some reason this post is deemed unsuitable for pprune and will be deleted asap.
Like, I am the first and only person to think of this?
Sheep protected by wolves springs to mind.
Idiocy follows close behind the wolf.

[blimey]

In another word, theft. BAA aren't immune from the criminal law.

[sweetie76]

Can someone tell me why the Captain (short or long-haul) should have his ID - and livelihood - removed by Security because a cabin-crew member circumvents the system and manages to smuggle a 150 ml bottle of shampoo into the cabin?

[411A]

I'm sure someone at LHR has got wind of the fact that crews are by-passing the system: they are claiming their bag is going in the hold on the Manifest whilst actually putting it in the cabin (with an oversize bottle of shampoo etc).

If this is true (and it well might be), the LHR crews have only themselves to blame...IE: the few that are 'clever' have spoiled it for the rest.

Quite typical.:rolleyes:

[eagle21]

Perhaps this has something to do with the recent bomb threat incident at Heathrow & the fact that a cabin crew member was detained. Crew are probably now considered as much of a threat as anyone else (if they weren't already) & perhaps even more so, given their regular access to aircraft.


Is cabin crew want ot bring the a/c down, the just need to put a few oxygen bottles to cook and it's done. So again stupid measures being taken.

[fireflybob]

Happily I don't operate to/from LHR but the crews have all my sympathies.

The lunatics are definitely running the asylum in Britain now (notice the lack of the word Great).

As I predicted the 12 that were recently arrested in the Manchester area under the guise of "terrorists" have now been released without charge.

Until we have a revolution in the UK I fear things will only get worse - we only have ourselves to blame.

[sweetie76]

Well, yes.

BUT why should you lose your driving licence because your 18-year old daughter is convicted for drink-driving?

The only way Security could enforce this rule is by having spot-checks on cabin baggage in the aircraft: labour intensive and expensive ie almost unworkable. I expect the logic (if there is any) is that the Captain will do their job for them.

Mr 411A ,would you be happy to lose your livelihood because a young, cabin-crew member decides to smuggle that special 150ml bottle of expensive shampoo in his/her cabin bag?

[wheelbarrow]

I'm not sure that the Captain has any legal right to search the bags of his cabin crew. If they refuse, is he obliged to offload them and then suffer the inevitable delays while finding a replacement!
Why not enter the airport by the freight side, there the crews don't even have to get out of the bus! The sucurity staff are obviously much better equipped there because they can scan all bags etc whilst they stay on the bus as well! Why is it considered Ok for one set of crew and not another? They are either not following the correct DoT regulations or are interpreting them in a much more sensible way!

[Max Angle]

Why is it considered Ok for one set of crew and not another?

Because the BAA and the people at the DfT who supervise their security operations are a complete bunch of idiots who don't have the first idea what they are doing.

[sweetie76]

Judging by the responses so far (some more responsible than others), this DfT 'initiative' is seen for what it is: an ill-thought and ill-conceived idea which is completely unworkable.

It smacks of vindictiveness disguised as the DfT doing its bit to ensure we are safe from ourselves.

It's really up to our respective managers to get this new ruling consigned to the bin where it belongs or, at least, to apply the policy only to those who would cheat the system.

Can you see anyone standing up to the DfT?

[Ex Cargo Clown]

I've still yet to see any firm evidence of why liquids are seen as the only way to cause an explosion onboard an aircraft. It's absolutely ludicrous.

Clearly Class 4 DG do not exist and in no way can solids possibly be flammable, oh and of course there are absolutely no solid oxidising agents either.

The whole "security" system is farcical, and the liquid ban is just indicative of the lunatics who are running the whole fiasco.

[411A]

would you be happy to lose your livelihood because a young, cabin-crew member decides to smuggle that special 150ml bottle of expensive shampoo in his/her cabin bag?

Wouldn't happen at my airline, we have slightly more responsible folks in the CC ranks.
IE; They do what they are told, or are dismissed accordingly.

Simple as that.

And, yes, if I don't like their performance, the CC manager sends 'em a don't come Monday letter, pronto.
At an outstation?
They are dismissed promptly, and can find their own way home.

Therefore, they comply with the rules in force.

Case closed.

[ItsAjob]

As usual the security dept are looking in the rear view mirror instead of the windscreen.
Liquids are a threat of the past. Im sure the bad guys are one step ahead by now and would not even bother with another liquid based threat.

[sweetie76]

Wouldn't happen at my airline, we have slightly more responsible folks in the CC ranks.
IE; They do what they are told, or are dismissed accordingly.


What a lovely, perfect world you live in. Must be wonderful.

btw does 411A relate to the Cessna light twin I used to fly about 30 years ago? (See, I CAN rise to the bait.)

[falcon10]

In continental Europe, the liquid restrictions are in place for pax, but crew do not need to pull out all their liquids from their cabin and/or hold bags. I feel very sorry for my colleagues that operate out of the UK.

Does this apply to deadheading crewmembers?

[411A]

btw does 411A relate to the Cessna light twin I used to fly about 30 years ago?

Yup, I've owned one for twelve years as my personal aeroplane, and delivered several directly from the factory many years ago.
A fine aeroplane, IF flown properly.

Next question?:hmm:

[wiggy]

OK I'll make my point again - many of us operating out of LHR lost any option to repack liquids into hold baggage several years ago - when this liquids farce first kicked off. Crews checked in their hold baggage well before their handbaggage was screened and we never, ever had the option to repack after handbaggage screening.....so if you accidently had a greater than 100ml container in your carry on baggage then it was confiscated...:bored:

If the original post is to be believed all that seems to be happening here is TranSec/Dft are forcing some airline's crews, rightly or wrongly, to fall into line with procedures already in place on parts of the Airport ( at least LHR).

I'm not saying I agree with the current farce over crew and liquids, I think it ****s for the short Haul Boys and Girls, but sorry, I don't see what all the shock and horror is about.

[411A]

...but sorry, I don't see what all the shock and horror is about.

Precisely.

[cgsblue]

The DFT would get absolutely hammered if they ignored this threat!!!

Once got a jar of marmalade refused, had to take it back to my car, otherwise I learn to live with it.

[gtf]

Not flying out of LHR much, so wondering whether the ban is actually enforced there ? Plenty of airports do such a bang up job at enforcing the liquid ban I stopped bothering to adhere to it a long time ago, especially states side.

[wiggy]

"Not flying out of LHR much, so wondering whether the ban is actually enforced there ?"

To be safe leaving fortress UK assume it always applies to everybody, be it passengers, operating crews and deadheading crews and irrespective of wether you use a passenger or staff screening facility....

[Capt Turbo]

Scene: LHR post 24, Captain comes with his brand new Taylor Made Driver...

Floor level security man 1 (FLSM 1) - "Wonderfull driver, sir...you cannot take it through here"

Captain (C): "It is going in the hold"

FLSM 1 : "No can do, sir. You have to bring a station person out here to take it to the hold"

C: "You trust the apprentice check-in girl more than me??"

FLSM 1: " Rules!"

C: "Are there any competent security person present here who can quote me the rules on this??"

DEAD SILENCE.....

Floor level security woman 1 (FLSW1): "Don´t be so difficult. Give it up volontarely"

C: "Are you the competent person I was asking for just now? You want to confiscate my club....that´s not volontarily"

FLSW 1 : talking in her walkie-talkie : " Control 1...Control 1 ...immidiate response....we have a situation....."

Captain calls station on mobile, but being understaffed, the station guys cannot retrieve the club until after departure of the flight.

C:" OK, the station will pick the driver up later. Can you please give me a receit..."

FLSW 1 : " You cannot get a receit as you have turned it in volontarely!"

C: "Did I ask for your opinion?? Now I ask you colleques if sporting equipment is allowed as part of crew baggage in hold...IS IT????"

FLSM 2 + 3: "Yes, sir, but it has to be in a bag!"

C: "So 14 lethal clubs are OK if in a bag...1 driver is not??????"

FLSM 1 + 2 + 3 : "That´s right, sir".

At this point captain unzips his big crew suitcase and puts the driver inside with the handle sticking out.

C: "OK guys, problem solved, have a good day..."

FLSM 1: "OH NO...you cannot do that! It is not a golf bag!!!"

C: "Are you the competent person on the rules, or do you just work here?"

FLSW 1 : "Control 1....Control 1 ......We need supervisor backup immidiately!!!! "

Control 1 (on walkie-talkie): "Post 24, he cannot be there until in 30 minutes"

FLSW 1: " You will get a delay out of this, and you are blocking the post"

C: " We have a delay code for crew security harassment and undue delay, and this crew is not moving until all legal crews baggage has been processed!!!!!"

4 pilots + 13 C/A smiling patiently at the FLSM/Ws, who are now appearing quite uneasy.

And then the Upper Level Security Supervisor (ULSS) appears, tweed, moustace and healthy outdoor type (clearly a british golfer).

ULSS: Yes, sir....sporting equipment is allowed. Yes, even one piece. No, sir...the suitcase is not a suitable container. Well, strictly speaking - you are right -it does not need a container....But you could sneak it up in the cockpit...No, sir..I cannot carry...OH, WELL...I will bring it to the aircraft and see it safely on board.....

All faces saved, my Taylor Made made the 12 hour trip on time and the FLSM/W greet me very politely when we meet at post 24.

So now I need to take this fantastic putter.............:D

[spud]

Did you ever consider not re-electing them?

[Munnyspinner]

Is toothpaste or hairgel safe to have around the house? I'm concerned that if BAA feel that any more than 100ml presents a threat greater than a berserk pilot in charge of a 400tonne 747 then I will keep my supplies under lock and key.

Presumably, there have been a number of attacks involving half used tubes of ******* ( brand sensitive)toothpaste or other dental polish. Surely hallitosis on the flightdeck is a bigger killer?

I have set my 11year old son on mixing toothpaste and other liquids that I would be likley to take on a trip ( safely, at a distanace in the shed) to see if he can concoct anything even mildly explosive.

In fairness to BAA their concern must be that a crew member will smuggle equipment on board to assist a terrorist! Surely if you helping someone blow you out of the sky you would just do the job properly from the front seat ?

It can't be the containers because you can buy what you like airside so is it just another ruse to assist flagging BAA airside sales - never! Apparently T5 airside retail sales are almost half what they should be - now there is a surprise!

[fireflybob]

Did you ever consider not re-electing them?

Often! The lunatics really are running the asylum at the moment.

[ManaAdaSystem]

Not all of us flying in and out of UK are UK crew. I pack my liquids in my overnight bag and bring everything through crew security. It's then placed in the hold. I try not to get a heart attack before I get to the aircraft, so this is what I do.

If one of the hosties violate this procedure, are they going to confiscate my foreign ID? If not, what will be the consequence? Pilota non grata in UK?

I'm not going to defend this new and slightly stricter procedure, but I recently sat for 15 minutes in the crew transport waiting for the crew ahead of us to clear security. A lot of repacking going on.

What kind of liquids are you guys bringing in your pilots bags?

[lsh]

Manchester cargo apron entrance, this week:
Seen written in large black letters on the back of a female security staffs dayglo jacket;

"PIT BULL"

Am I losing my perspective / sense of humour or...........????
lsh

[Munnyspinner]

Was that with or without the lipstick?

[RoyHudd]

When your deodorant spray/shampoo/conditioner is about empty, take it to work in your flight bag. Send it through the scanner. Those wonderful guards get a buzz from removing it, telling you off, and forcefully throwing it into their bin; you save the bother of recycling or disposing of said item. Works a treat at MAN. And EMA. And CWL. Actually at most places. Everyone's happy! And keeps "security" on their toes.

[sweetie76]

Yup, I've owned one for twelve years as my personal aeroplane, and delivered several directly from the factory many years ago.
A fine aeroplane, IF flown properly.

Next question?http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/yeees.gif



And, presumably, in your perfect world YOU fly it properly.

The next question is the question you continue to duck: why should the Captain of a crew lose his job for the misdemeanours of a cabin-crew member?

A simple analogy: parents of an 18 year-old would be sent to jail if he/she stabs someone?


http://static.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif http://static.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=4879867)

[bravotangoegcc]

I'll throw my hat into the ring here!!

Firstly I'll point out that I'm a budding flyer who has loved avaition from being knee high to a grasshopper and that I work on security (its a complete Marmite job for staff towards us were liked or not liked simple!)

Simple answer is that the UK government is a stickler for following every rule to the letter that Europe imposes and so the DFT come down like a ton of bricks on any AD operator for not following the rules properly and therefore aviation staff get targeted and checked more thoroughly than pax sometimes even thought we have for a lot of our jobs very stringent background checks but then still get treated with mistrust!!

As for the regulations and restrictions a lot of crews, flight deck and ground staff come to work and go through security without hassle no tutting, no causing a scene, not taking it personal and on the whole being very jovial and understanding that it is just another part of their day realizing that security as themselves have a job to do :ok:

On the other hand I've seen crews, flight deck and ground staff acting like five year old kids having temper tantrums and having a whole you are the great unwashed attitude towards security.

I do know also that some security do go on power trips with the little power they have given to them and that its a double edged sword in terms of respect between staff, but personally I've found simple phrase and a good one to stick by is 'treat others how you would like to be treated' it works a treat.

Also I've seen the rules come and go and the liberties slowly being taken away from staff and can full well understand the frustrations of some staff who have been in the industry for donkey's years and have seen a decline in the industry.

I have respect for all staff however low or high powered their job is and I also have a great amount of respect for Pilots as you guys are in a job I would love to be in and with a bit of luck and time hopefully will get to work in the best office in world.

and one final point I'll make is that in this regulation driven aviation world of ours in the UK a lot of the time common sense would like to be used but we're all bound by the rules and don't feel like putting our necks and jobs on the line for one small easily resolvable matter.

[A and C]

Interesting view from the other side....................... however the rules set down by the DfT are enacted in a number of ways and what is good for one airport is not for another.

Manchester happens to be the very worst airport in the UK in the way it treats crews, I have quietly walked away from treatment that in any other profession would be classed as sexual abuse or assault, I have had my bags tuned out in front of the crew and passengers in an act that seemed to be some sort of sport for the security staff. The passage of a package that was a birthday present for my wife THREE times past the X-ray and then ripping it open was totally uncalled for (before you ask the items were not my size!) and was harassment of the worst type and the items went in the bin after the being pawed by the so called security operative.

On another passage of MAN security was marked by the insistence that I removed my items of clothing to examine my knee the scale of the clothing removal that was insisted upon was totally out of proportion to the examination requested.

Throughout my career I have tried to treat all staff in a way that I would like to be treated, with respect an common courtesy however I have had enough of the games and stupidity of the security staff at Manchester. I have had enough harassment and abuse from the likes of Manchester security and will take the most robust action that the law permits the next time that I am abused.

If you are doing your job properly you have nothing to fear from me but if one of your workmate steps out of line he or she can expect more (legal) trouble to be visited upon them that they would have ever imagined existed.

[bravotangoegcc]

I have seen and have heard and even cringed about some of the actions taken of which you speak and have heard we are seen as one of the worst security towards crew in the UK by talking to crews and reading from websites such as this one.

Also I've seen the many different interpretations of the DFT rules too and agree that there isn't enough uniformity regarding the rules.

Its good that you also treat people how you expect to be treated as I've said I've seen many others who don't have this simple common courtesy, but I can't speak about the actions of others (let alone apologise as it would be a hollow one) and am always mindful of the need to do the job correctly.

Apart from that I wish you safe and happy flying (and transit through MAN)

[Capt Pit Bull]

Manchester cargo apron entrance, this week:
Seen written in large black letters on the back of a female security staffs dayglo jacket;

"PIT BULL"

Am I losing my perspective / sense of humour or...........????
lsh

<grin>

You got a problem with pit bulls?

pb

[BIG MACH]

Is it true that for a civil servant to qualify for the security brief at the D of T he has to leave school with no qualifications?:*

[boardingpass]

the UK government is a stickler for following every rule to the letter that Europe imposes

Um, no, the UK government has imposed these rules. The restrictions do not apply to crew in Europe.

[Cruella De Ville]

There is a way of dealing with this tomfoolery. Ask to see the risk assessment that underpins all these security/safety measures and then ask to see the 'fit and proper person' qualification from those who put the risk analysis together. Thing is, whilst the airport drongos are fixating on clear plastic bags and shavings of sawdust, they are mssing the planks of wood! Airport security have entirely lost the plot in respect of how terrorists can sabotage an aircraft and, frankly, the greater threat is always airside, not non-airside.:ugh:

[Zeus]

Or you could lobby your MP and ask them to attend the BALPA reception in the Commons Dining Room between 4 pm and 6 pm. on Tuesday 5th May on this and other matters.

Don’t know your MP?
UK Parliament (http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/commons/l/)

[A and C]

Email sent to MP asking him to attend .................. now if you all sent an email to your MP's maybe we would start getting the message across because the MP's sure don't have the time to read pprune!

Its easy just click on the link on the post by Zeus above.

[cockney steve]

Everyone appears to concentrate on the incompetence of the "security" droids and the stupid rules.......

Everyone seems to overlook the sheer COST to this country , in having It's most-wired, highest producing ,most commercially savvy business leaders, stood like a bunch of naughty kids , collectively wasting over a hundred hours of their POTENTIAL earning-power, for these farcical "security" charades.


Where the hell are BALPA, the CBI, the FSB and the other trade-bodies and representatives ?

Brown has allowed the *ankers to rape the country's coffers 9after he gave away our gold-reserves).....now he's intent on driving frequent-flyers abroad.

Damned if I'd put up with it. Amazing that someone isn't doing consolidated charters on popular routes and allowing "private parties" to bypass the circus.


Acute loss of revenue might just wake up a few of the rule-influencers.

[Flintstone]

Emailed my MP asking him to attend the BALPA reception. Any UK crewmember who doesn't do the same really has no grounds to complain about this fiasco. Get organised.

[freddie50]

I think you have got it right. As an SLF frequent flyer living abroad I long ago gave up landing at a UK airport to then catch a domestic flight to my final destination, as the security hassle from the UK security staff is just too much to stand, especially coming in on an LH flight.
I now ensure I land at a continental hub and make my final connection from there. I will even accept a landing at CDG before a landing at LHR or Stansted

[freddie50]

Just a note - asked my MP to attend on 5th also.
Mass lobbies of voters sometimes has an effect:ok:

[fireflybob]

Have also faxed/emailed my MP - the more the merrier. This link is useful to write your MP:-

Fax your MP (http://www.faxyourmp.com)

[DISCOKID]

As a passenger I frequently fly from many UK aiports and don't experience any issues at security. I am fully aware of what the rules are, make sure I comply and get through security in a pleasant manner with no issues whatsover.

This suggests the crews that are having issues aren't complying with the rules in which case they can't complain about security picking up on this as they are only doing their job, or the security staff who work in crew areas are being deliberately difficult which I find hard to believe.

If this is the case people should be complaining to BAA or the relevant airport owner directly. I complained to BAA via their website about security queues when they were a problem last year and received a response so at the very least it might raise more awareness than complaining on here.

Even better ask to speak to the service manager once you've got through security at which point its too late for the security agents to be awkward to you in return :)

[A and C]

If you are crew you find that all the airports make up different "extra" rules as to what you can and can't do so a crew member can be good for one airport and find that three hours later at another airport in breach on the local "rules".

What we want is a common standard............... no more.

[Litebulbs]

Hello All,

If there are any BALPA pilots from Crawley reading this thread, please invite our MP Mrs L Moffatt. She has informed me that she would be delighted to attend, but as yet, has had no formal invite from BALPA.

Bulbs

[zukini]

Thought for the day

In the same way we all want good experienced pilots to save aircraft with good judgment calls when something happens. (hudson springs to mind)

We also want good experienced security to properly judge what luggage actually causes risks. Going by the checklist blind doesn’t always help.

At the end of the day both pilots, crew and security protect planes and passengers, so shouldn’t we be asking BAA for the experienced security officials.

[Re-Heat]

[quote]Can someone tell me why the Captain (short or long-haul) should have his ID - and livelihood - removed by Security because a cabin-crew member circumvents the system and manages to smuggle a 150 ml bottle of shampoo into the cabin?[quote]
I suspect that this would be totally unenforcable in a court of law.

[Munnyspinner]

At Heathrow are all security employed by BAA?

I thought BA managed T5 exclusively with G4S i.e non airport staff. Is this correct and are they any better?

LCY have by far the best UK security that I have encountered. Everyone else seems to have impairment to mental faculties.

[A and C]

As you say the unusually large tackel might be the root of the problem however life is usually a balance and for each inconvinient situation there is some form of compensation.

[AF jockey]

Here in France, a number of pilots are getting sick of the harassment to the point they're about to get up a petition demanding the government to turn the way crew are treated into a more reasonable yet efficient way. Things have gone to a way point where they make no sense anymore and can even prove counterproductive. That's why the French are starting to say "enough is enough".

I love the previous comments about how a harmful load of 100ml liquid can suddenly become harmless when left in the hold...

Are they taking the piss or what ???

[MaxReheat]

Allez france! A little 'non' is long overdue from our Gallic friends.:ok:

And yes - 100ml at a time, though.

[African Drunk]

Our company does a lot of positioning of our crews on airlines. I have virtually given up traveling in uniform from the UK. I have found that when in uniform I am always picked to remove shoes, belts, etc but when traveling out of uniform this happens 1 in 5 times. I have also never seen security staff pass through having to remove jackets, shoes or belts

Outside of the UK security attitude to crews in uniform is polite and helpful, I believe they see crews as on the same side as themslves. Was a measure not passed by the US congress over this issue?

We are being asked to sign up to ID cards by UK gov. I would support tight background checks, even paid for by us, that means all crew have to meet the same standards as armed police, if we could then be treated as part of the solution to security and not the biggest threat.

[FRying]

Bang on, African drunk !

I find all this disgusting and counterproductive, let alone disrespectful (see MAN...)

[transilvana]

this BAA guys are the most stupid beings in the world, it´s 1000000 times much easier to set a bomb in a catering container than on a perfume bottle!!!! another reason for not flying into LHR.

[fc101]

I still can not comprehend a number of things:

1. why is 1x200ml more dangerous than, say 2x100ml, or 3x100ml ?
2. why did we let this happen?
3. who was the politician ultimately responsible?
4. why isn't anyone doing anything? Media, newspapers etc?
5. why are arrangements for confiscating things different between airports (why did my shaving foam get nicked by some 17yo last week, but not the 5 times before)?
6. what effect is this having on pax? Its one thing to have stressed crew, but 200 stressed pax doesn't help either....yes I needed a drink after last week's nonsense!
6a) have people stopped flying because of security abuse and nonsense?
6b) have security nonsense contributed to illfeeling amongst pax?
7. why the arbitaryness of the list of things that are banned? Hell, some of them aren't even liquid...?
8. why can I buy the same or more "dangerous" after "security" ? And in larger quantities too?


I honestly believe that the next terrorist attack will be because of security staff taking a 200ml bottle of water off someone instead of noticing something far more serious.
Anyway, did all this above crap stop Plane stupid getting onto a runway (did this happen more than once?)

Anyway, I have to go buy a new toothbrush after it was confiscated....

fc101

[411A]

The quite obvious answer for pax that can (due to their particular travel arrangements) avoid travel from/to/through any UK airport, and as crew myself, sometimes asked to position through the UK as a uniformed crew member, decline to do so, on a regular basis...as quite frankly the UK security staff have become so obtuse, I simply will not put up with it....nor will about twenty other crew members that I know of, who often travel on the same general schedule.
This also positively eliminates any travel on any UK airline...it's, hello CDG/FRA/AMS and AirFrance/Lufthansa/KLM.
Much better cabin service on the latter, anyway.

[Nicholas49]

411A - it's a great idea but making it work would require mass co-operation on the part of both passengers and crews to bypass UK airports. What is required is a kind of organised strike in protest at their behaviour. I can see no way of making that happen, and until it does nothing will change. Even once BAA is forced to sell off some airports (which will not include LHR) there may be no improvement.

[Final 3 Greens]

Nicholas49

Being one of the pax mentioned by 411A as being able to choose where I transit, I think you misread his comments.

He is not suggesting protest action, rather just pragmatically saying that avoiding London airports makes a lot of the pain go away.

And it does.

[UCLogic]

At the risk of being jumped on by every polarised view.....

I work in the industry for an global operator presently based overseas and travel very regularly mainly via LHR and T5. On my last trip I filed a complaint with BA due to the processing of some VIPs?? and what I took to be a BA short haul crew. It was about 8am and large queues at the security checks, the queue was held to let some perceived VIP into line ahead who were by no means ready for security and held the line for a while. The crew who were also in line had far more than normal handbaggage to get through the 'xray' scanners, and then several crew were rejected passsing through the 'arch' for metallic objects or shoe checks. All the pax that day were held, some who were short on time, to cater firstly for VIPs to jump the queue (who I later saw in the lounge) and then for staff who probably pass security more than most not complying with the rules.

The airside rules are clearly defined and we are all expected to comply with them. Those of us that travel regularly should be able to cope with them without any particular effort. As a note, also in the queue that morning was a BA Engineer going airside to satellite B. He managed to move through in good time following the rules including subjecting his inspection equipement to scrutiny in the same manner as everyone else.

Personally I do not find the present rules user friendly, but they are in force and if we wish to work we have to abide by them, it is/should be the same for everyone. Local variations are hard to understand apart from possibly covering temporary failure of equipment. Just avoiding the checks by routing through hubs with less scrutiny is not possibly comparing eggs with eggs when the whole service and/or safety case are taken into account.

[WHBM]

All the pax that day were held, some who were short on time, to cater firstly for VIPs to jump the queue (who I later saw in the lounge)
Were the VIPs Members of Parliament ? Did they need to get to the lounge quickly in order to finish filling in their expenses ?

[GlenQuagmire]

a few candles, a bit of music, a security guard, a well hidden 100ml of liquid..

my kind of night

giggety giggety goo...


alll riiiight...

[Ex Cargo Clown]

It's all well and good saying, "These are the rules, they may be nonsensical and ridiculous but they are the rules, so bite your tongue and just accept them".

Unfortunately the human mind does not work like that, intelligent people always question what is put before them, and if what is in front of them is completely ridiculous and pointless and very inconvenient then of course they will rebel against it.

The whole situation is farcical, everyone within the industry can see this. It's about time that action is taken to sort this mess out, the complete opposite of accepting it.

[midnight cruiser]

UCLogic - your brand of logic doesn't seem to register that your aeroplane doesn't go anywhere until the crew are on board (and ready to go fly). Bear in mind, there is just a legal allowance of 1 hour for all of crew briefing, various bussing around, security, aircraft preparation and boarding - So you want crew to stand in a queue for the best part of that? - I do hope you dont have any pressing engagements at your destination, because you will be very late!

and if you think crew compliance with the rules will always lead to a swift passage through security, you really haven't been paying attention.

[infrequentflyer789]

6a) have people stopped flying because of security abuse and nonsense?


Absolutely yes. Long haul it probably doesn't affect, but for short haul / internal flights it can and does tip the balance in favour of other means of transport.
As I read your comment, I am acutally on a train for a journey I could have flown, and almost certainly would have done 3 years ago. Today, the added "security" adds too much time and hassle.

It starts before you even get to the terminal when you find that you can't be dropped off any more (or maybe you have to pay - paying obviously increases security:rolleyes:). Then you either have very limited toiletries, or you have to take hold baggage (adding time at both ends) where previously you'd just carry it on. And that's all before we even get to the security queues, the laptops/phones/everything out, shoes off, belts off and other random variants.

All the extra time is also just wasted. This train is still going to take maybe an hour longer for the whole trip, but for most of the journey time I am able to be sat at a table with laptop powered and connected to the net - so the time can be productive (note: can be :)). Even with the state of the UK rail system, the train is winning the decision more and more often - and I don't think just for me.

Total "security" hassle on the train remains 10 secs at a ticket barrier - because obviously no one blows up trains....

[Munnyspinner]

Yet.....

But what about Madrid, Bologna, etc etc. Thought these were trains?

I have switched about 60% of my former domestic air travel to rail because it is centre to centre and you can work and don't have to put up with some munter's elbow fighting for the armrest. Refreshments are served regularly and you can get up and walk around. Departure is departure not just a push back and a 20 minute hold and even though the journey takes a bit longer you can travel with more than a laptop, shirt, socks and boxers including shampoo, toothpaste and any other toileteries in volumes unimaginable by BAA security.

Ok so you don't have the luxury of the queue for Security, belt off, jacket off, shoes off, laptop out, laptop in, belt on, shoes on, jacket on "oops sir, I'll need to rescan your bag as you appear to have more than 100ml of liquid not properly displayed in this ere plastic bag". Nor allow the extra 20 minutes just in case you're late to the gate, queue to board, (oh why do aisle passengers always get in first?) belt up, wait for ATC , pushback, wait for slot. Have perfectly enjoyable flight only to have to wait again for a gate, wait for the doors to open, queue to get out, miss the first train, wait 15 minutes for the next then 15-30 minutes later find your self broadly speaking where you want to be - partially frazzled and having to do the same again tomorrow. Phew - aircrew have it easy!

[Crusty Ol Cap'n]

I think you guys are missing the point. This is not about preventing terrorist acts but about placing the blame for such acts anywhere but on the security services/screeners! :(

[kappa]

411a
The quite obvious answer for pax that can (due to their particular travel arrangements) avoid travel from/to/through any UK airport .... decline to do so, on a regular basis...as quite frankly the UK security staff have become so obtuse, I simply will not put up with it....
This also positively eliminates any travel on any UK airline...And I am another pax who does just that. It also eliminates UK transit on any airline with O&D there, including AA, UA, CO and DL.

I was once EC Silver on BA and am Lifetime Platinum on AA. But it has been over four years since I flew BA and over three since I was in transit through LHR on AA. I use the airports on the continent.

I don’t care if it is the Exchequer (the outrageous taxes), the DoT (the senseless delays at security), the BAA (the baggage losses and silly airport rules), BA (lack of staff) – the UK airport experience is something I avoid at all costs!

[frangatang]

As someone has already posted , SOMEONE came up with these ridiculous ideas so who the hell was it, a UK numpty or an EU gravy train wallah? Might be nice to write to them.
I wonder if they realise,the 100ml restriction doesnt apply to crew coming into the UK !

[Munnyspinner]

I wonder if they realise,the 100ml restriction doesnt apply to crew coming into the UK !

An interesting condundrum. If they arrive then presumably the threat level of the whatever liquid they are carrying has been judged safe - i.e the aircraft was not been destroyed on route and therefore the country of origin has been fully vindicated in allowing pax and crew to travel with liquids in containers of more than 100ml volume. Equally, it is most unlikley, having gone to the trouble of secreting liquid explosives on a flight from wherever, that they are actually destined for mainland UK.

If the flight doesn't arrive because some numpty has successfully used the lax security procedure to take on board liquid explosives in a container of more than 100ml then the above fact is somewhat irrelevant.

Incidentally, the deemed threat is from the container being greater than 100ml which is a joke as you can easily buy bottles of water ( and a host of bottles and containers) airside. It would only take a dozen or so mavericks acting together to accumulate 1lt of active chemical. Maybe this is the flaw in the system?

The process of screening liquids of up to 100ml is two fold. One the quantity in itself does not present a huge threat and puts the pax under 'stress' which is monitored and observed by staff. If there were multiple attempts to smuggele chemicals airside this would in all likliehood be thwarted in this way.

Seems to have worked so far - thankfully.

[BusyB]

The 100ml does apply to inbound freighter crews to LHR who have to throw their water away (the one they have flown half way round the world with) at security to be able to hand a customs dec in at Queens. I then have to buy another one for my bus ride home:ugh:

[Teddy Robinson]

UK airport security ? .. loathsome, a national embarrassment, one has to question who's side are they actually on given that one of the objects of terrorism is generally held to be to disrupt and spread disquiet.

Nice one BAA
I am doubly to be an infrequent visitor to the septic isle

TR

[Munnyspinner]

Busy B,

may be a bit of forward planning might avoid your frustration. After a trans global flight do you really have much water left?

[steamchicken]

In NCE the other day...I'd bought a Cassoulet in a jar. I reckoned the French security would probably see sense about *that* 500 or so ml of mixed liquids and solids. And they did. France is a civilised country. Had it been outbound I suspect they'd have kept it for din-dins...except at LTN where they'd be too busy with their young.

[eliptic]

How big plane do you blow up with 100ml nitroglycerin:ugh:

(better security not shake it to much:eek:)

[hellsbrink]

DISCLAIMER: THIS POST IN NO WAY ENDORSES THE STUPID RULES DISCUSSED IN THIS THREAD. IT IS MERELY "THINKING OUT LOUD" AND A THEORY REGARDING WHAT COULD HAPPEN, EVEN WITH THESE DUMBASS RESTRICTIONS.

How big plane do you blow up with 100ml nitroglycerin:ugh:

(better security not shake it to muchhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/eek.gif)

Would you need to actually "blow up" the plane? Here's a thought for you, you don't. All you need is a "bang" on a plane nowadays and then everyone and everything goes nipples skywards. Set off a small one in the toilets or, even better, a small one that hurts a fellow pax and your terrorist cell has all the publicity they need as well as causing the chaos they desire. Restrictions get worse, security gets worse, yada yada, because of the ensuing publicity.

Sobering thought, isn't it. You have several planes with one "Jihadi" brainwashed/willing to do such a thing and no restriction on solids or liquids will stop the chaos they want happening.

[Munnyspinner]

Nitroglycerin is not that easy to make nor acquire and thankfully the machines at Airports are very sensitive to any Nitrites present in baggage. This include nitrogycerin tabletsfor heart conditions. I have even heard tales of folk who have been picked up because some adhesive products give a similar trace to Nitro.

I understand that 100ml of Nitro could easily cause a significant damage on an airliner at altitude. The effect of a pressurised hull and with low outside airpressure would 'magnify' the effect of any blast. Any breach in the hull structure will presnt a risk to life.

[hellsbrink]

But would you need nitro? What about something that reacts, something like an acid/alkali mix, to release smoke and nasty fumes? All the bad guys would need to say is "Next time it will go BOOM" and there you have the desired effect. (You do not want to know some of the things I have found online regarding liquids. For obvious reasons I ain't posting them here)

Makes a mockery of the "100ml" rule, when you think about it. After all, the IRA crippled a large chunk of London several years ago just by saying "There's a bomb on a District Line train" (I was caught up in it, every train was emptied ASAP at stations and the whole lot checked out. Was a hoax, of course, but it had the desired effect). Why bother making the "big bang" when you can cause enough chaos with the threat of it? There is an obvious follow on to that too.........

[transilvana]

The liquids regulation is a thing of the past, just an excuse to fuk up everybody, more and more people have moved to trains (I do) because it´s much better to ride on them, It´s been ages since I don´t fly in Spain from one city to another but I assure you that if this would no be my profession I would never take a plane again.

Don´t you think that politics all around europe and USA are just doing politics and not takeing care of the real people needs?

[fc101]

Munnyspinner wrote:
I understand that 100ml of Nitro could easily cause a significant damage on an airliner at altitude. The effect of a pressurised hull and with low outside airpressure would 'magnify' the effect of any blast. Any breach in the hull structure will presnt a risk to life.

Would 5 times, say, 50 ml of Nitro be any different...well within the regulations... :ugh:


Question: if I buy a bottle of water after security, who has checked that these bottles of water are safe?

fc101

[Munnyspinner]

Question: if I buy a bottle of water after security, who has checked that these bottles of water are safe?

What on earth do you mean? Safe - the bottle or the water? They are security screened and come form the retailers/suppliers. If they didn't contain water it would become apparent when the first person who bought one took a drink. If some contained chemical then the staff would have to be complicit in arranging for these to find their way into the right( wrong) hands.

The fact that they could be used as a vessel to contain a greater volume of liquid remains a potential threat - but the security teams obviuolsy assume that they will intercept and dangerous chemicals under the 100ml rule which would prevent multiple terrorsits amalgamating their chemical airside.

[Carnage Matey!]

If some contained chemical then the staff would have to be complicit in arranging for these to find their way into the right( wrong) hands.

What, like the 'lyrical terrorist' who worked airside at W H Smiths selling..................................................... bottles of water?

[42psi]

Munnyspinner

What on earth do you mean? Safe - the bottle or the water? They are security screened and come form the retailers/suppliers. If they didn't contain water it would become apparent when the first person who bought one took a drink. If some contained chemical then the staff would have to be complicit in arranging for these to find their way into the right( wrong) hands.

The fact that they could be used as a vessel to contain a greater volume of liquid remains a potential threat - but the security teams obviuolsy assume that they will intercept and dangerous chemicals under the 100ml rule which would prevent multiple terrorsits amalgamating their chemical airside.


Are they "screened" ?

Is it impossible for someone acting in collusion to circumvent?


I'd also add .. what do you think happens with inflight catering prepared outside the security zone and then delivered airside.......


I see this stuff move airside every day :=

[elgnin]

I read these threads everyday if I can and sometimes I do wonder. Many on here tell us that they are professionals, mostly pilots, working in the aviation industry. Given that not just anyone can take the controls of a commercial aircraft - a large amount of intelligence is required, exams, experience etc. I do tend, rightly or wrongly, to credit you all with some common sense and logic. Most if not all will have completed at least one degree which should expand your mind and teach you to research a subject sufficiently enough to draw a balanced conclusion, a skill you carry with you for life and apply in many everyday situations.So, how can so many get it all so wrong? This site appears to be somewhere that many vent their spleen rather than add value to some seriously good threads.Just above, Carnage Matey refers to the lyrical terroist working airside. Not true and not hard to establish that fact.Several on here have said the 'liquids threat' is a thing of the past and should be dropped - that is unbelievable. I wonder what the reaction would be if, god forbid, a liquid device brought your aircraft down. How bad would the 'Government Wallahs' be then?Everything that goes 'airside' is screened from passengers to the stock in duty free shops to the catering on board. All staff, crews and vehicles are also screened - even the people that make the rules that appear to upset so many of you are screened - i didn't have to research very long to find that out.My point is that a little research - asking the right people, web-sites etc will answer most of the question that seem to have some on here on the verge of a stroke! How disappointing that some of the profession I have (and continue to) admired most of my life display so much ignorance on a subject that they should know better than many.

[wiggy]

" So how can so many get it all so wrong"

Yes, most of us here are professionals, many with degrees, and we have been trained in critical thought but unlike you we don't rely on web-sites for our primary source of information... is it just possible you are the one who is getting it "all so wrong"?

Most of us go through airport screening everytime we come to work. Yes, we are aware of what goes on, and yes, we are entitled to "vent our spleens" when we see, for example, gallons of liquids being rolled through into airside for commercial reasons whilst security are dismantling our briefcases.

You said .." All staff, crews and vehicles are also screened"..

Do yourself a favour, rather than relying on web-sites or talking to people down the pub, take a look at the way, say, vehicles in particular are screened at most UK airports - then I suggest you'd realise what a charade this all is.

Oh yes, and do yourself another favour - if you want to join a reasoned debate delete the last sentence of your posting, the one implying that the professionals here are ignorant...it makes you sound arrogant and badly informed.

[noodnik]

Yep the French are so civilised Richard Reid walked onto the aircraft. I suppose the odd terrorist getting on now and again is immaterial when it comes to keeping the majority of people happy. Unless that is you happen to be on the same flight.

[Symbian]

You lot make me laugh moaning about security which I agree is way over the top.

But moaning about here will make no difference ASR it and your company safety department will raise an MOR if they are professional.

The CAA need historical data to go to the DofT to prove there is a flight safety hazard with some aspects of security. If we as professionals don't take the 5 minutes to submit an ASR then we only have ourselves to blame.

So stop wasting your time here and fill out those ASR's it is the only way we have any chance of stopping this farce.

[eliptic]

Everything that goes 'airside' is screened from passengers to the stock in duty free shops to the catering on board. All staff, crews and vehicles are also screened - even the people that make the rules that appear to upset so many of you are screened

Do you really serious believe in this!!??

I can bet what ever that this worked fine the first week security was implemented

It is like the hotel security´s screening the taxis undercarriage with mirrors 10 meters from the lobby door,,what a joke !!

[elgnin]

You just proved my point. You admit that you vent your spleen rather than add valuable input to the debate and you incorrectly and publically assume I refer to web-sites as 'a primary source of information' and discuss with 'mates down the pub' to increase my knowledge of the subject. You are very wrong. Furthermore, the regulation as I understand it, is that everything is screened when entering a restricted zone. If you know or have proof that that is not happening, why have you not passed it to those who can act on it? If you witnessed a burglar breaking into the house next door would you go online and vent your slpeen or call the police? You seem put out that I question the professionalism of some of the responders on here but choose not to address some of the factual stuff. Is that because you agree but don't wish to acknowledge it?

[Munnyspinner]

...it makes you sound arrogant and badly informed.

As opposed to you, who sounds ignorant and badly informed.

Just where have you seen gallons of liquids being rolled airside without any screening? And how would you know that they haven't been secuity screened?

As regards vehicle screening do you mean cargo/mail trucks and /or catering trucks. And do you understand how the security protocol works? - Thought not.

Do you ever consider that if the catering/cargo/fuel/mail vehicle route was an easy way to expedite something airside then this would have been done by now? Thought not.

[Ancient Observer]

I agree with Symbian. ASR each and every tiny issue to do with the grief caused by Security.

[LH2]

Interestingly, the other day I was perusing a catalogue from an airport services training provider.

It was quite interesting to see that to be qualified to pump the **** out of an aeroplane you needed to attend a one day course. Or you could take a half-day course and be a "security" agent.

--------

411,
The quite obvious answer for pax that can (due to their particular travel arrangements) avoid travel from/to/through any UK airport

Yep., that's exactly what I do.

Elsewhere, if addressed to by the x-ray operators or if anyone so much as touches my bag, I simply demand the presence of the police, as it's them who have been trained and (in most jurisdictions) have the authority to stop and search people. Curiously, the police have always been supportive in this situations.

[wiggy]

Thanks for your thoughts, I guess both of us aren't as fully informed as we like to think we are....

[Ex Cargo Clown]

As regards vehicle screening do you mean cargo/mail trucks and /or catering trucks. And do you understand how the security protocol works? - Thought not.

Do you know how "Known Cargo" works ???

How much screening do these people go through ?????

[42psi]

Ex Cargo Clown :ok:

Do you know how "Known Cargo" works ???

How much screening do these people go through ?????

Well put



I'm really puzzled, there simply cannot surely be the degree of naivety being shown by some posters on the security of items being brought airside.

Those that see and know how the system works understand the foolish and pointless exercise that takes place when your liquids are confiscated and so on.

By that I do not mean is a binary liquid device viable, I mean there are far easier ways of getting the liquids airside and distributing them than crews, engineers etc.

And yes, the "authorities" are well aware of these.

It's like the "emperors' clothes" or "the elephant" .......... we've all been skirting around trying to avoid saying it out loud.

There are so many holes in the effective security that these measures are nothing more than window dressing to try and look busy.

And that's why those subject to this every day get so annoyed/frustrated and fed up with it.


Now ...... where's that "banging my head against the wall smiley" :*

[eliptic]

I'm really puzzled, there simply cannot surely be the degree of naivety being shown by some posters on the security of items being brought airside.

Agree 100% !and only a fool would think that with so much stuff that brings in airside could have a"high level security"


The liquid Donald Duck rules are there for other purposes,,to keep our al-Quaida fear up to a acceptable (for some agencies) level

[eliptic]

Suspicious Pipe-Like Device Found Taped To Airport Fuel Truck


Suspicious Pipe-Like Device Found Taped To Airport Fuel Truck : Homeland Security News (http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2009/02/01/suspicious-pipe-like-device-found-taped-to-airport-fuel-truck/)

Just read the above link and there needs no more comments! the next (god forbid) terror are for shore not going to come from the SLF forbidden toothpaste or water bottle.

If someone wants to bring down a Aircraft there are millions of other ways to do it, you don´t even need to be on board or air side

Buy a helicopter would be enough :mad:

[Romeo India Xray]

Last week I came back from TLV (Tel-Aviv, Ben Gurion) as a SLF on an ID ticket.

A month before I had travelled from a training course in the UK, via LGW, also on an ID ticket.

Observation.

UK - ID ticket presented and met with scrutiny at check-in, to the point where I was told that "ID passengers don't have any right of boarding ahead of regular passengers" (the flight was full -1 which check in agent wanted to keep open), OK, let that one drop but said I would be happy to take the jump seat. "No way sir, that is strictly off limits". After offering to make a few phone calls to a few people I happen to work closely with (including the DFO of the airline I was about to fly with) the seat magically turned up with my name on it.

Israel - "Hello sir, window or aisle? Have a nice flight"

UK - Security a total nightmare - shoes off, belt off (I was in uniform of course). 75ml shaving foam not in plasitc bag...

"You will have to purchase a plastic bag for that."

The plastic bags are 1 GBP and conveniently sold next to the confiscation post. I refused to surrender the foam and let the numpty think that I was slightly higher up the pecking order than straight forward line pilot (which some people may consider I am). The position of security numpty changes somewhat at that point.

"Perhaps you have a re-sealable bag you can take from your main bag then?"

I take out a small ziplock bag, insert foam and hey presto, everything is suddenly safer and I am not 1 GBP worse off.

Israel - Take as much water or other liquids through as you like. Nail ckippers too.


In Israel everyone goes through security questioning before even getting to chack in. Much has been written about this questioning. Being a white caucasian male, with honest bone-fide answers to their questions, it is a simple process of answering a few personal details.

The Israelis have multiple levels of overt and covert security, aimed at catching the terrorists... and it works.

Until the UK drops it's PC BS (which lets face it, is not likely to happen), the terrorists will have an avenue through which they can sneak. Also, until the UK becomes an hospitable place again, I will continue to avoid it as much as I possibly can (the only reason I was there recently was because the course I was on was one of only 2 globally this year). I no longer use the UK to position, no longer fly any sectors out of there and try to get family to visit me here in preference to having to see them in the UK. Well done Gordon - another own goal.

RIX

Disenchanted ex-pat

[kontrolor]

thank god for trains.....
you just wait the day, when security finds out, that a shoelace can in fact be the detonator cord...we will be embarking the plane in nickers only...and with no hand luggage

[wiggy]

Just one last comment, really, ..

"If you know or have proof that that is not happening, why have you not passed it to those who can act on it? "

Why do you assume I didn't? - because you didn't read about it?

[etrang]

that's why those subject to this every day get so annoyed/frustrated and fed up with it.


Which is understandable. But why don't you try and do something about it? One thing is for certain and that is that no amount of complaining on a message board is going to change the situation.

[elgnin]

You are correct and hands up, I didn't see that you had made a post that detailed an incident and that you had reported it. Perhaps you can let me know where it is, I will be interested to read it.In my defence and as much as I read the site I would not claim to read every post and nothing in the post I responded to implied that you had posted imformation about something specific, so apologies Wiggy.

[42psi]

Which is understandable. But why don't you try and do something about it? One thing is for certain and that is that no amount of complaining on a message board is going to change the situation.


1. I have attempted to do something ... that's how I know it's understood and accepted that the security regime is "visual" rather than "effective" and is full of swiss cheese. I would, however, caveat that ... while those that set the requirements and insist on their deployment I believe fully understand their limits they do not pass that knowledge on to those they charge with applying the "rules".

2. You mistake my comments for complaints ..... my only complaint, I suppose, as such is that there appear to be many (mostly from outside the industry I would guess) who seem to think that somehow what's being done is "effective security".


The problem now for the security industry that has grown up around this is that there is no effective out of the circle.

It can't be downgraded/reduced back to what existed before without implying that either the threat level has reduced or the measures don't address the threat - either of those options would seem difficult for those reponsible to accept.

[B737NG]

.....there was a day I did not mind to operate or deadhead in and out of LHR. Today if feel affended when my Scheduler comes with the idea I should pass thru there for any reason. I am not sure how much Airport tax and security charges where divertet from LHR to CDG/AMS/FRA/VIE in the past because alot of people I know are avoiding LHR like the Devil the visit in the Church.

It could be a victory for the enviormental protecters as well: Less PAX, less flights in and out of LHR. Less revenue? Wake up will be late and I am sure the traffic is welcome somewhere else with open arms. A roman Emperor found way back that the Tax imposed generates a income that covers expenses. Money counts, how does the BAA-Acountant justify that one day?

Jealousy is my impression when I had to pass thru security in LHR in the past. Is it the colour of the Uniform? Give them a blue one instead of the green.

I am with 411A: Stay away as much as you can, avoids alot of personal hassle and stress.

Fly safe and land happy

NG

[elgnin]

Hmm, I don't have a problem with anyone quoting what I post and happy to debate it but try attributing the right quote to the right poster first huh! The first quote on your post was not from me!

[StudentInDebt]

Apologies elgnin, I've removed the post.

[Munnyspinner]

737 NG sage words with which I accord.

LHR has lost its way and I agree that it should be avoided as much as possible. However, as the UK's only major Hub this is fairly difficult. The reason that Secuirty is so cr*p at LHR and other BAA SE Airports is due to the regulatory framework that is policed by CAA. BAA have a duty to provide secuirty to standards that they effectively determine ( DFT are the body they have to satisfy but BAA go the extra mile and DFT aren't goping to tell them to do less!) the cost of this plus a margin is recovered under the airports charging structure. Therefore the more staff involved, the higher the cost the more they make in margin - easy. One suspects that the job is so monotonous and boring that only those with the lowest IQ and highest boredom thresholds will actually be capable of performing the task - not true, I have been assured by BAA. ( honest - I have a letter).

Paranoia fuels the current security drive. If a terrorist gets anything aboard it won't be through the normal security comb. BAA seem to operate the most obtuse systems and have the most impolite staff but the more you complain or identify the absurdity of some of the procedures, the tighter the noose will become. Heathrow= avoid.

[Channex101]

Its not as easy as just "why not put all your liquids on your hold luggage" I work short haul for BA ex LHR and we are forbidden to check any bags in, we have to take everything onboard with us, so whenever we go away (which can be anything upto 3 days) all we are allowed is the basic 100mls.
I feel sorry for the girls who have to pack all their make up into this bag, us guys are lucky enough to just have th basics but even then to save space in my bag im forced to use a stick deoderant which i hate!! but it saves me going through an over priced 100ml spary on one every 2-3 days

[Munnyspinner]

Am I not right in thinking BA have responsibility for thie own security at T5 through G4S? So, whay don't BA have a staff comb that operate on a different basis?

The 100ml rule is ludicrous anyway because it would be easy for multiple amounts to be combined airside. I don't know if this is still possible as they have photo tracking now but, I used to occasionally use my airside pass to shop before a trip - leave my purchases landside then go back though security for duty. It was handy where electonic items were on special offer and I didn't want to cart them from pillar to post on a trip or rely on BAA's super efficient buy and collect service - don't know if this is still available either. Can't say whether I was breaking any rules or not and was never challenged - I once had the same conversation with the same security operative at LHR about 40 mins apart - it was spooky because she didn't initially remember me and told me all about someone else who had been saying exactly the same thing that very afternoon - me!

[hotmetal]

so whenever we go away (which can be anything upto 3 days) all we are allowed is the basic 100mls.

Err I think you mean up to 5 days. Aren't BA shorthaul trips on the 'bus up to 5 days? So nearly a week with poxy little 100mls of this and that. It is driving some people mad...bring me my pills nurse..quick!

[flying macaco]

Airport ban on liquids set to end | ABTN (http://www.abtn.co.uk/news/2812546-airport-ban-liquids-set-end)

Light at the end of the tunnel??! Or will they find something else to ban in 18 months time...