Petition to remove liquids restriction for UK aircrew

[ETOPS]

Please folow the link to sign...

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131431

[T250]

Hasn't this been done before and had a woeful outcome?

Besides, there are far more pressing issues for the UK government to be dealing with than this right now... :zzz:

[beardy]

Strangely 'government' can do more than one thing at a time.

Signed

[El Bunto]

If it was a petition to remove liquids restrictions for passengers, too, I might be interested. But introducing exemptions for crew alone would just lead to confusion at the 'security' lanes.

Pilots can well afford to buy a bottle of water and a yoghurt at the airside Boots.

[OhNoCB]

It doesn't lead to confusion anywhere else in Europe. Its also not really about affordability - I would rather bring things that I have bought and chosen than be stuck with having to make a choice from an often woeful selection at airside shops. Not to mention with some companys/airports you will never actually be in the terminal building.

[PDR1]

It would introduce the new security risk of people smuggling items airside by impersonating aircrew (wear the uniform, strut around importantly and only cast a glance at non-aircrew types when looking for something to spit at - it's not hard). The idea is that airside is a sanitised box - you don't drill holes in the walls of operating theatres so that the surgeons can grab their fags...

PDR

[Chesty Morgan]

An over sized yogurt is now an new security risk?

Don't you think impersonating aircrew has been tried before only with things that go bang? It's not exactly a new thing so strangely there are procedures in place.

[PDR1]

...and this petition is seeking to remove them. That's kinda the point!

PDR

[Chesty Morgan]

Nope, it's asking to remove the liquid restrictions on crew. Not to remove any and every restriction on anyone passing through security.

Anyone impersonating aircrew is still as likely to get nicked.

[PDR1]

Of course. that (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3571276/Airline-passenger-accused-impersonating-pilot-scenes-similar-movie-Catch-rumbled-ordering-cocktail-snapping-flight-meal.html) can never happen. Can it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Abagnale#Airline_pilot).

:)

PDR

[Tim91]

And what about ATC? Not just flight crew who should be exempt. ATC have just as much 'right' given their access at their workplace as you guys claim to. :=

[Chesty Morgan]

PDR, of course it can. That's why I said it was still as likely. Although since those incidents awareness of its possibility will be raised.

I'm not sure that anyone will go to the lengths required to access airside as an active crew member just so they can take their toothpaste with them though.

[mustrum_ridcully]

Hmmm, what could possibly go wrong, it's not like there might be international rules and regulations that prevent this?

[beardy]

The rules that prevent aircrew from taking larger containers of fluids through security in the UK and showing them separately are UK rules. In other parts of the world NO crew are subject to these restrictions, their security personnel seem to be able to cope with understanding and recognising the difference between aircrew and passengers. And yes we can fly from there to here making a mockery of our home grown policy.

[Mr A Tis]

international rules and regulations that prevent this?

Travel around South America and there are no liquid restrictions for anyone.
Travel around Asia, not much attention is paid to what is "scanned"

A multi million security empire has emerged to prevent that dodgy yoghurt passing from one side of a counter to another.

As we have seen, determined bad guys, will always find a way - yoghurt bans or not.

[Centre cities]

Why should the general members of the travelling public trust air crew more than anyone else.

There are recent events that suggest that they should not.

Centre cities

[beardy]

If they don't trust the crew, don't fly.

What an absurd conjecture you posit.

[TCAS FAN]

A UK airport that I often use has an apparent exemption in order that the fire crew, who within the Restricted Zone (UK definition), can take liquids airside, for example milk and soft drinks, with a summary sight by security staff. Makes a complete nonsense of the ban.

[G-TYNE]

Anyone remember a guy called Andreas Lubitz?

Aircrew are not a master race free from corruption of the mind and should be subject to the same restrictions as everyone else.

[DaveReidUK]

A UK airport that I often use has an apparent exemption in order that the fire crew, who within the Restricted Zone (UK definition), can take liquids airside, for example milk and soft drinks, with a summary sight by security staff. Makes a complete nonsense of the ban.

On the contrary, it sounds eminently sensible to me.

If my flight is going to end up a smouldering wreck on a UK runway, I'll be hoping that the boys and girls of the ARFF crew have had their daily pintas.

[wiggy]

Anyone remember a guy called Andreas Lubitz?

Yes..now ask yourself whether his carrying his own yoghurt, water, toothpaste had any bearing on what he did.

Aircrew are not a master race free from corruption of the mind and should be subject to the same restrictions as everyone else.

OK, so we won't attempt to access the flight deck, we will make sure we are in possession of a valid ticket ...

Guess what, in order for you actually travel by air crew and others have to do lots of things passengers are not allowed to do.

:ugh: :ugh:

[Deep and fast]

If you want to mention lubitz, what about improving pilots mental and physical health by dropping this liquid nonsense and allowing us to take our food in made from home. Let's face it, there is a lot more chance of something getting airside in all that stuff that they bring through to sell airside. Lots of anonymous boxes packed by people on bad wages.
Remember picking up an aircraft from a foreign military base with just a wave through the gate flying straight into..........Heathrow. And yet you all believe it's secure. Dreamers, it's about the money.

[Chesty Morgan]

And what about ATC? Not just flight crew who should be exempt. ATC have just as much 'right' given their access at their workplace as you guys claim to. :=
Do you want us to start a petition for you?
:E

[carousel]

So it's Flight Crew +Cabin Crew +ATC +Fire Crew +Ambulance Crews +Border force + Customs Officers + Police + HMP Custody Officers and contractors + of course fuelers baggage teams engineers all of which have been security cleared and need no further checks. Oh of course the security staff who are the ones who check the checkers who need to be checked by who?:ugh:

[easyflyer83]

None of the above, other than cabin crew and flight crew, have access to the flight deck once the aircraft engines start.

[T250]

At the end of the day let's be subject to the same rules or have no rules at all.

Are we really going to get into some elitist hierarchy of who is the 'most important' at the airport. It's pathetic :hmm:

Yes there are already exemptions (believe it or not!?) for certain scenarios and individuals. For example, police responding to emergency calls are able to go airside immediately, without being subject to any checks.

But then these are the same guys carrying firearms around the airport airside on a daily basis, no problems there as they have been subjected to multiple psychological testing to even carry these. And dare I say it, their psychological testing hasn't failed yet, whereas in case of you flight deck, it has. Remember last year in the Alps? :cool:

[beardy]

Ah, last year in the Alps. Remind me how many ml of yoghurt were involved and quite how the lack of psychological profiling for crew has any relevance to the inability to carry said yoghurt to the cockpit? Which, incidentally, he could, because he wasn't subject to the UK DfT rules when he reported for work.

I can take a litre or more of any fluid into the cockpit when I report for work on the homeward sector from the USA and from many other countries , but not when I report for the outbound sector from the UK. Only here do we have this rather pointless procedure to prevent pilots from assembling or helping to assemble a liquid bomb to destroy the aircraft over which they have control, sufficient control to destroy it without the need for any device.

We don't have the same rules for everyone at the moment as you have highlighted with but one example.

There is no elitism in treating crew differently from passengers. It is normal at almost all airports outside the UK.

[haughtney1]

Ah, as ever the spotters come out spouting the usual rubbish about things they know little or nothing about.
Fact, I can go to work stark b0llock naked (God forbid!) and via my own hand cause the early end to all my passengers aka that German chap. The mere presence in my flight bag of a bottle of water or can of tuna (in oil) makes not one iota of difference, the restrictions as they are applied to crew in the UK are a joke, EVEN in the US, this has been recognised as such, and now I can greet the TSA with coffee in hand (yes it gets scanned) show them a quick sip, and all is good.
To all you spotters and those of the "we are all equal" persuasion, get used to the fact that our health, happiness and well being has a direct bearing on our ability to do the job of transporting you to your destination in a safe manner, we are not all equal in the sense that our job, our responsibilities and our professionalism means that just like the police, fire service etc etc, we are part of the solution, not the problem.
The UK restrictions on crew are a laughing stock worldwide and are merely theatre in disguise.
Petition signed.

[PDR1]

Ah, as ever the spotters come out spouting the usual rubbish about things they know little or nothing about.


Ah, the self-important aircrew come out spouting the usual rubbish about things they know little or nothing about...


Fact, I can go to work stark b0llock naked (God forbid!) and via my own hand cause the early end to all my passengers aka that German chap. The mere presence in my flight bag of a bottle of water or can of tuna (in oil) makes not one iota of difference, the restrictions as they are applied to crew in the UK are a joke, EVEN in the US, this has been recognised as such, and now I can greet the TSA with coffee in hand (yes it gets scanned) show them a quick sip, and all is good.


All if which is true, but not relevant, and demonstrates why some of the more arrogant pilots may want to leave the thinking to ohers!

If a pilot can take fluids airside then two pilots can take two bottles of a binary explosive airside. Once airside they can hand them to groundstaff (say, during their walk-around) who could place them in an aeroplane that neither pilot would be flying on.

Now consider the above concept, with the two pilots being pilots of private jets (so not known to anyone or subject of a vetting programme), and the target aeroplane being (say) an American or Israeli airliner. Consider that the pilots may be taking said bottles through to airside because (say) their wife and/or daughters were being held hostage, as was the groundstaff person. Consider that in both cases they had been told that they were under cosntant surveillance by others in the airside areas, and should they approach or message anyone in security there would be an instant text message resulting in the painful death of their loved ones...


To all you spotters and those of the "we are all equal" persuasion, get used to the fact that our health, happiness and well being has a direct bearing on our ability to do the job of transporting you to your destination in a safe manner, we are not all equal in the sense that our job, our responsibilities and our professionalism means that just like the police, fire service etc etc, we are part of the solution, not the problem.


The unpleasant arrogance embodied in this statement is just incredible. Do all professional pilots support this attitude?

PDR

[RexBanner]

The liquids ban has been shown to be absolute nonsense regardless of whether it is crew or passengers carrying them. I remember reading from an expert that you would have to be mixing these liquids in the toilet for hours on end under laboratory conditions with a sustained heat source for all of that time, whilst somehow managing to avoid suspicion in order to even stand a chance of inducing an explosion. An interesting read:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/?page=2

[beardy]

PDR1,
The UK seems to be alone in considering your scenarios a risk. No strike that, the UK seems to be alone in not modifying it's reaction to the changing threat.

BTW thanks for feeding some of our less well educated readers ideas. FYI, there are easier routes to get hazardous materials airside.

[Chesty Morgan]

If a pilot can take fluids airside then two pilots can take two bottles of a binary explosive airside. Once airside they can hand them to groundstaff (say, during their walk-around) who could place them in an aeroplane that neither pilot would be flying on.

So in every other country in the world where the liquid restriction is not in place this happens, what, regularly?

Or is it just that the UK has a higher percentage of pilots bent on blowing up someone else's aircraft?

By the by I can, if I chose, put many tonnes of highly flammable liquid on board my aircraft and fly it into the Houses of Parliament, or any other juicy target in the UK, before anyone would have time to say scramble and I'm only one of hundreds or thousands who could do that every single day. Why would I risk carrying some liquid explosive with me whilst going through security?

[haughtney1]

PDR
Ah, the self-important aircrew come out spouting the usual rubbish about things they know little or nothing about...


You don't happen to work in the "security" industry do you? Or perhaps you are one of the old BAA security bods who are all 007 wannabes looking for that illusive "sleeper" hidden amongst the masses?

And then this dross is trotted out...
If a pilot can take fluids airside then two pilots can take two bottles of a binary explosive airside. Once airside they can hand them to groundstaff (say, during their walk-around) who could place them in an aeroplane that neither pilot would be flying on.

I don't need fluids to do any of that, I can merely hand them if I desired a compromised battery from a mobile phone, or perhaps an aircraft fire axe, or some metal cutlery from first class.....but using your logic, what about the policeman..."under duress" armed with an assault rifle? Or perhaps the rogue fire fighter in charge of the 30 tonne fire truck! Goodness me, there are threats everywhere! safer to shut everything down, and not apply ANY common sense or risk assessments.

And yes PDR, those of us who are subject to this dross are almost unanimous in our "arrogant" attitude towards those who impose poorly thought through and poorly implemented rules on the basis of flawed logic that flies in the face of industry best practice.
It's not arrogant to question the motives and competency of those who make decisions, it is in fact an essential element to what makes aviation incredibly safe, after all, every 6 months I have to prove I am competent, are those who make these rules up (often reactively) held to the same standards? Or is it merely easier to call pilots arrogant for asking questions? Or worse.

[RexBanner]

Let's suppose for one minute that these things are even viable, which is hugely questionable. Ever tried to throw a bottle filled with liquid? Unless you're a five year old child (or a woman oops controversial!) you'll have found it's not exactly hard to propel it a fair distance. How about some terrorist chucks a bottle of liquid explosive over the miles and miles of non monitored airport fences and his mate on the inside goes and picks it up, or even better he works airside himself and just goes later in the day to go pick it up himself. You don't even need two people.

Congratulations, you've just bypassed airport security screening. Extremely easily and without the need to embark on risky and extremely fanciful kidnap and blackmail programmes.

[RAT 5]

1. 5 pax each with 100mls to be mixed or 1 pax with 500mls of dodgy stuff: what's the difference?
2. I was at XYZ (UK) crew only security. Along came the trolley for the airside shop laden with sandwiches, yoghurts & 250mls bottles of water for sale. They all went through the X-ray and were cleared. I asked the x-ray man how they could tell it was really water? There was a silent stare, (if I tell you I'll have to kill you type of stare). Trust us. "So why can my bottle of water not be assessed in the same way?" Silent stare, again. "Orders guv."
I was travelling as a pax through NCE. I'd bought a triple pack of small tins of something in a tomato paste. In total it was more than allowed and the paste was deemed a liquid. Solution? Open the pack and put each tin separately into a 'sealable plastic bag' and our group to take one tin each. You couldn't make it up. But I do give praise that it was the security lady who came up with that solution rather than throw the tins away. All rules were obeyed and everyone's backside was covered. Brilliant.

[sdh2903]

And what about the hundreds and thousands of engineers, ground handlers and so on? We are generally stuck airside with the same access to the airside food shops for our liquids. Usually for a 12 hour shift. At least (most) of the UK airlines provide bottled water, meals and tea and coffee on tap. We get diddly.

Don't make this elitist because the drivers are seen to be above everyone else. Because without all the minions doing their bits there would be no flights either.

[T250]

As usual, flight deck/flight crews think they run the airport and are the only people operating from it :rolleyes:

If we relax rules on certain things for staff then let's do it for similarly responsible individuals and job roles. These should include:

- ATC
- Fire Service
- Airfield Operations
- Security Personnel
- Police (including armed)

You as flight crew are not in any way unique into the supposed danger you pose to your aircraft, all the above have relative dangers too. ATC can screw up either accidentally or deliberately. Fire service have a range of equipment which is dangerous and potential weapons. Airfield ops drive all over the airfield constantly and have unique vehicle access to the runway. Security, well that's obvious. Police is an easy one too.

It's a bit rich that all you flight crew concentrate on yourselves, there are a lot of others on the airfield who can do harm before you even get airbourne! :ugh::cool: and this is before we even consider the great unwashed pax themselves!

[Chesty Morgan]

Do you need us to start a petition for them too?

[RexBanner]

T250 do you have to take a case to work containing toiletries to keep you clean as a matter of courtesy to the guy sitting next to you for the day? Do you then have to go away on three, four or five day Shorthaul tours with no facility to check said toiletries into hold luggage as exists for Longhaul crew. Leaving you having to pointlessly remove those utterly useless 100 ml liquids containers every single time you pass a security checkpoint.

This isn't about elitism. You don't have to carry liquids to work on a daily basis, we do. This is about a sheer frustration that we as flight crew encounter which doesn't quite apply to ground crew who at least get to go home to their beds at the end of the day and shower/wash properly in the morning before coming to work.

[haughtney1]

As usual, flight deck/flight crews think they run the airport and are the only people operating from it

If you think this, you are based on my own observations of my flightcrew colleagues....wrong.

I agree BTW whole heartedly with your assertion, we all have a stake in this, but alas the vested interests in security see more profit potential in creating threats out of thin air.

As an aside, part of the reason flightcrew are generally more vociferous in our opinions, is that for the most part we are the last line of defence...or the ones riding the thing to the ground, and, as a group, we have the greatest to lose. We also have the benefit of seeing how other places operate perfectly well without applying these daft restrictions.

[GLAEDI]

Here's a true story a UK Law enforcement officer sezies a shot gun and shot gun cartridges from a domestic belt landside, as these are covered by Section 5 rules they're required to be stored in the armoury, which is airside. So to show how stupid the current rules are he buys a pint of milk to go through security. The security staff prevent the milk being taken airside but have no authority to take the firearm and ammo. So what is more dangerous the Firearm or the milk airside! All Police & Border Force staff carry offensive weapons (a mixture of handcuffs, batons, Pava Spray/CS and firearms depending on roles) for personal protection these can't be touched by security staff. The rules for 100ml should be removed from all staff but unfortunately the airports and retailers would be upset at losing the revenue streams by forcing staff to pay for overpriced food & drinks.

[T250]

Do you need us to start a petition for them too?

Maybe you'd be kind enough to share your own precious flight crew petition with the other essential staff who maintain your safety (ATC, airfield ops) as well as overall security on the ground (Police, security). Without whom you wouldn't even be in the sky to face such grave dangers or such smelly colleagues. :bored:

But then again, maybe not. It is after all, all about you isn't it :ugh:

[RexBanner]

T250 would you like some salt to go with that massive chip on your shoulder you seem to have about pilots?

[750XL]

Why only aircrew? Why not everybody else who works airside?

What gives Aircrew the right to bring through something that the fella stood behind them in security can't?

[Chesty Morgan]

Maybe you'd be kind enough to share your own precious flight crew petition with the other essential staff who maintain your safety (ATC, airfield ops) as well as overall security on the ground (Police, security). Without whom you wouldn't even be in the sky to face such grave dangers or such smelly colleagues. :bored:

But then again, maybe not. It is after all, all about you isn't it :ugh:

Well as its a flight crew petition then I don't think it applies to anyone else. I'm sure all the other people you mention have the brains to start their own if they so wish, no? Maybe you could start the ball rolling...

But then again, maybe not. It is, after all, up to flight crew to provide the coat tails on which you wish to stand isn't it?

[beardy]

I am surprised by the vociferous way that some people, who apparently work at airports, really don't like pilots. I wonder how many they know. We are in the same industry, what's the problem?

If you think that all employees should be exempt from the liquid ban, make your case and put it forward, as the pilots have done. If you think there should be no exemptions, don't sign the petition.

[RAT 5]

Why only aircrew? Why not everybody else who works airside?
What gives Aircrew the right to bring through something that the fella stood behind them in security can't?

Why be decisive about this issue, why not unite? Is it because the issue has been raised by aircrew? Initiative? Perhaps, but now the issue is in the open then unite. It does seem odd that the unions who represent all the other airport workers, including ATC, engineers shop keepers, security, etc. act usually have more effective union backing than pilots. Why not raise the issue at your union meetings. I suspect concerted action by all the ground side workers would make the authorities shake in their shoes more than the prima donnas having a whinge.

[PDR1]

I am surprised by the vociferous way that some people, who apparently work at airports, really don't like pilots.

Are you? Do you think that perhaps the way some pilots (even on here) treat everyone else like something nasty they've stepped in might have something to do with it?

PDR

[JosuaNkomo]

I agree. Lift the ban for crew.

Although we get crew food which is " tasty " it is tasty because it is very high in salt, sugar, bad fats and e numbers.

I gave it up years ago and take salads in. It would be great to be able to take a flask of soup through.

I would like to know how rigorous the checks on airside produce is. Does that all get scanned?

[RAT 5]

All Police & Border Force staff carry offensive weapons (a mixture of handcuffs, batons, Pava Spray/CS and firearms depending on roles) for personal protection these can't be touched by security staff.

As a joke at XYZ (UK) my water was removed and dumped. At my EU base it was allowed. The joke was I asked the 'terminator/robot cop' looking guy who waltzed through with his world war 3 uniform if he could carry my water for me. The lack of humour made me think everyone was Swiss german/Colombian and I was in the wrong airport.

[Chesty Morgan]

Are you? Do you think that perhaps the way some pilots (even on here) treat everyone else like something nasty they've stepped in might have something to do with it?

PDR

No, do you?

[PDR1]

You may wish to think that - I couldn't possibly comment.

PDR

[RAT 5]

And he huffed & he puffed and he blew the house of cards down.

[Chesty Morgan]

You may wish to think that - I couldn't possibly comment.

PDR

I didn't think you would.

[beardy]

PDR1,

Yes, I am surprised. It seems odd to me that a bad experience is extrapolated to colour your opinion of all pilots to the point that it clouds rational logic. I have had poor treatment by security both here and by TSA in the USA, but that doesn't mean I hate them all, they are just doing there job, sometimes badly. Sometimes I get well treated and it's a pleasure to meet nice people doing a badly designed procedure.

I put it down to frustration, which really gets in the way of being a decent human. Perhaps if we could change the security procedures to something more rational and less anal we would all get along a little better.

[PDR1]

I'm not for a moment suggesting that all professional pilots behave like this. I'm just suggesting that there is a small minority who believe themselves to be superior gods in whose presence mere mortals should genuflect as they are not worthy to share the same planet. You see that small minority on here - they're the ones who always insist that they alone control the destiny of millions, and claiming they should get special treatment as a result. They constantly whine about the behaviour of everyone else but almost never look to their own behaviour.

It's this tiny minority who besmirch the reputation of all pilots; the vast majority of whom are normal, reasonable people. the normal, reasonable pilots should really take these self-important blow-hards behind the bike sheds and teach them how to behave.

It's actually quite funny, because in most fields of endeavour those who focus mostly on how important they are usually transpire to be those who are the worst at the job; the pretentious arrogance being a compensating comfort blanket.

PDR

[possibleconsequences]

The rules are currently ludicrous- good luck to the petition . I arrive at work, drive my car into a check area, security staff do a quick walk around the car, open the doors, look in the boot briefly etc. I get out and walk through a scanner and will be searched if it alarms . I then walk back out to my car and am allowed to drive airside( to park at the control tower I work in) I could have a great deal of anything hidden in the car(perhaps a can of drink under the chair so I can drink at work!), to say nothing of the fact it is a one tonne high speed aeroplane ramming machine full of fuel should I wish to use it as such or to smuggle any liquids airside.
As i am being 'checked' like this I see aircrew going through the same checkpoint , no liquids allowed etc

It's a procedure that is seen to be done for the sake of it.

[PDR1]

PDR1,
Perhaps if we could change the security procedures to something more rational and less anal we would all get along a little better.

Possibly, but for it to work the procedures would still need to apply to everyone.

Simulator trials have shown that some pilots can still meet all performance requirements within an hour of drinking two double scotches (even more for "habitual" drinkers). This is even more true for drivers. On that basis should we give some people exemption from the bottle-to-throttle and blood alcohol rules, or should we continue with the current view that having one rule for everyone is less likely to be circumvented, less prone to error and generally more effective as well as fairer?

Things have come out in this discussion which ARE worth campaigning for. The idea that short-haul aircrew who are on a roster that sees them away from home for a few days are not allowed hold baggage seems (frankly) barking, and that would be worth campaigning for as a simple matter of employment rights, for example.

PDR

[paully]

Airport security, in the UK in its present form, has more to do with the re assurance of the guillible,and over cautiousness of poorly paid staff watched over by zealous management, than it has to do with anything else. I have no problem with aircrew, actually operating the aircraft, being treated differently. Its their place of work and they are professional people. The rest of us are just travelling for business or jollies. Different rules can apply, whether you like it or not..I`ve signed the petition.Good Luck

[beardy]

Possibly, but for it to work the procedures would still need to apply to everyone.

I don't agree. It would be nice and would seem fair, but is not necessary. As you have pointed out, some are exempt already.

[PDR1]

To apply the rules differently to aircrew would be saying "I trust aircrew and distrust passengers". History shows that this is not necessarily a valid assumption, so whatever rules are applied should be applied to all IMHO.

PDR

[haughtney1]

To apply the rules differently to aircrew would be saying "I trust aircrew and distrust passengers". History shows that this is not necessarily a valid assumption, so whatever rules are applied should be applied to all IMHO.

PDR

PDR, please if you can cite 1 example of where the non restriction of liquids has led to misadventure and or law breaking (i.e binary explosive) with respect to flight crew I will gladly desist in calling your argument vacuous.
The notion and logic of your position is that the authorities attribute an EQUAL amount of mistrust for operational crew as with their passengers would then also surely follow that those same untrustworthy crew should never be let near an aircraft in any other capacity than as a passenger themselves, after all, as you have stated they can't be trusted anymore than a passenger.
The very act of security screening for liquid unpleasantness can't and never will detect an individual's desire or impede their ability to cause harm.

[Chesty Morgan]

To apply the rules differently to aircrew would be saying "I trust aircrew and distrust passengers". History shows that this is not necessarily a valid assumption, so whatever rules are applied should be applied to all IMHO.

PDR
No, it would be saying that impersonating a passenger is easier than impersonating flight crew. Which it is.

Why not look more closely at passengers? I trust my fellow pilots more than I trust any passenger. I reiterate that I, we, are NOT more likely to kill you because we've got 110ml of water.

[beardy]

PDR1,

Aircrew would still have to go through security screening, so we would still be mistrusted and. This is not a binary situation.

Strangely most passengers trust us just enough to put their lives in our hands, despite having seen one suicidal pilot.

[JosuaNkomo]

I am all for exemptions for pilots. The fact of the matter is those technicians, ATCO's, cleaners, rangers, psa's, dispatchers and security people can ;shift permitting; go landside and fill their boots with whatever food they want.

Pilots on the other hand cannot pop landside as by definition we are either airside or in the air.

The fact that the poor germanwings fellow committed mass murder has no relevance to the liquid debate

[LlamaFarmer]

I fear the petition will do nothing at all. I do think restrictions should be lifted though.


To the person saying that "pilots can afford to buy a bottle of water from boots or their latte from Costa".
A significant portion of pilots are in the position of having to pay by training loans amounting to £24,000 per year. Plus, probably, rent in the South East. Add food and transport to the equation, and that alone would require a minimum after-tax income of around the mid-£30k. Which is more than many will actually be getting.


To the ones saying everyone should be subject to the same rules. No they shouldn't. As aircrew, I have undergone significantly more robust background checks than someone who bought a ticket on the internet. If I am trusted to have an unescorted airside pass, I should be trusted enough to take a 500ml bottle of diet coke in my flight bag, or a tin of soup, or a 350ml bottle of shampoo for my 5 nights away in another base, without having to pay premium prices the other side of security. If crew got supermarket prices on all items of food/drink, then maybe the rules would be a little more reasonable, but they're as much as 4x more expensive.


To those saying "what about the other workers, why should it just be for pilots", well this is (supposed to be) a professional pilots forum. Not an airport firefighters message board, or a radar controllers chat room. I welcome non-pilots to this forum, and have nothing against them at all, but why take it so personally that it was a petition for aircrew on an aircrew forum?!




The liquids law was only ever a short term reaction to a particular incident, but someone up the chain of command seemed to forget about it and so it's stayed in place ever since.
It's outdated, the threats have changed, there are much greater dangers than people smuggling liquid explosives through.

It's a UK problem this crew security ruling, everywhere else has seen common sense. Many countries don't even have restrictions on passengers carrying liquids.

A few months ago I had to surrender an empty water bottle at crew security which I had managed to take through plenty of times before. It was a liquids container larger than 100ml I was told. Which technically was correct, although containing absolutely no liquid (it was bone dry) it kind of was irrelevant. The rest of my liquids complied, all in containers less than 100ml, in a resealable clear bag.

The fact I would have been able to buy a 2 litre bottle of water as soon as I was through security (and if I wanted to, could have poured the entire contents on the floor) and thus had my large liquids container seemed not to convince the jobsworth security officer to let me keep it. So I left it with her, as she proceeded to get into an argument with the cabin manager from another airline behind me whose spaghetti bolognese was "too liquidy" or some *****.


Anyone who thinks that the liquids laws, particularly on crew (or any airside worker), are a sensibly implemented idea, is, quite frankly, a moron.

[Ph1l1pncl]

It's only the UK and Australia who have these ridiculous rules still in place for operating crew, in the US I can go through without taking off shoes, jackets, belts and anything out of my bag and have large bottles of water.

Australia I would say is worse than the UK at being over zealous and ridiculous with its screening, it's the only destination where crew mandatory have to go through the new X-ray scanners, if something doesn't have a lid it's confiscated even if it's under 100ml and I had toothpaste confiscated because it was in oz instead of ml.

[El Bunto]

I don't think anyone would disagree that the 'liquids rule' is daft and a waste of everyone's time.

But the way to address that is to lobby remove the restrictions entirely, not to carve-out exemptions for self-selecting entitled groups.

[spannersatcx]

So I'm stuck in a security queue for 10-15 mins whilst a contingent of Border Force proceed to load around 20 boxes each containing 24 cans of coke! When I asked te security operative how come they are allowed to take all that through and yet I can not take a bottle of water or a carton of milk, the response was - they have an exemption for tools of the trade, i.e. liquids, since when has a can of coke been deemed tools of the trade!!! His answer, it's a joke really! I have tools of the trade on my pass, yes but that only allows things like leatherman, hammer, screwdrivers etc not liquids. What a joke.

[Chesty Morgan]

A small(ish), regional, international, airport in the south (UK) wouldn't allow our company based engineers to take a pint of milk through security so they could make their regular cups of tea. No, no...they had to take four pints through to prove that they were really making tea with it.