Apron Transport, Airport Security and the Break Glass Hammer

[christeniversen]

For about 2 years now, I have been trying to get answers from IATA, Transec, BAA, CAA and the DfT to help me confirm the following:

1 It is illegal to carry a break glass hammer onto a plane as hand luggage.

2 Break glass hammers are considered dangerous weapons.

3 The glass hammers aboard apron buses represent no threat to security.

4 Airport apron transport operators are exempt from airport security restrictions.

5 Break glass hammers cannot break any glass critical to an aircraft's safe operation.

6 All airport apron buses comply to local public transport regulations governing emergency exits.

All the answers I've got have been either evasive or hostile.

I realise this issue is not necessarily a pilot or crew member's problem, but I'd still like to know whether or not you think this is an issue with an acceptable risk?

All these questions have also been asked of all manufacturers of apron transport (Cobus, Neoplan, MCV, etc.).

Thanks,

Christen

[dusk2dawn]

Why bother about a little hammer? You should see the axe we carry in panorama class!

[christeniversen]

But is it an acceptable risk that one or more passengers could disrupt a flight with the help of these little hammers?

The problem is that there are between 4 and 8 unsecured and unsupervised break glass hammers of various sizes freely available on every apron bus on the planet (I'm sure)!

[Tinstaafl]

I think the point is that in yet another idiotic insecurity rule, an object is disallowed past the checkpoint even though the same object is easily available afterwards.

[call100]

Beats me why you would want to carry a break glass hammer in your luggage!!!???

[Piltdown Man]

Security exists for itself and itself alone. A thrives on media stories, perceived threats and advances in technology because then it can scare the general public into asking for more 'security', which will happily be provided. But you won't be more secure and the knobheads who run the thing are accountable to nobody. Worst of all, as a direct consequence of the way system designed and run, the bad guys are given a clear path to their targets. Unfortunately, the system is fixated upon bombs and weapons being taken upon aircraft and not the 'big issue'. This wastes time, effort and focus. Unfortunately, it's not the tools which are the problem but the potential user with malicious intent. That you have spotted a potential threat makes you a 'trouble maker' and therefore a security risk.

My advice? Don't bother. There will be another atrocity and the system will again be shown to be impotent. You'll just have to hope that when it goes wrong you and your family are nowhere near.

PM

[ExXB]

For about 2 years now, I have been trying to get answers from IATA, Transec, BAA, CAA and the DfTIn the EEA (EU +NO, IS, LI) security is governed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1546/2006 of 4 October 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 622/2003 laying down measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006R1546:EN:HTML).

Individual countries are required to adopt the Regulation into national law, and the UK has, but this doesn't mean that it makes any sense. (The only thing that comes from Brussels that makes sense is moules frites.

btw - You should note that the Annex to the Regulation, which sets out the restricted items, is secret. Your tax dollars (or pounds, or euros) at work.

[411A]

Beats me why you would want to carry a break glass hammer in your luggage!!!???

Indeed so...and, these 'hammers' went out with the do-do bird in many countires.
It must be a 'UK thing'...I suppose.:ugh:

[christeniversen]

Did the hammer go out with with the do do bird for security reasons? It's hard to see what they saw in each other.

[eastern wiseguy]

@411a...seems that they are so DO-DO like they are manufactured in Santa Barbara...must be a US thing then (lifehammer nov8)....:E

[call100]

The pointless rules that see me getting searched then allowed through with a firearm!!!!
Occupational hazard now....I don't think the searches even register any more as I go through them. There seems to be no mileage in complaining or protesting...

[christeniversen]

There seems to be many contradictions in the interpretation of "acceptable risk" and it seems a grin-and-bear-it approach is the suggested method of dealing with airport security!

As a passenger, I would prefer proactive to retroactive problem solving. But that's just me.

[A and C]

Tesco in Crawley is just fine it was those to stupid to stack baked beans that went to security at Gatwick!