SensibleATCO

Posted by RoyHudd.....
A not so veiled threat by somone who clearly believes in free speech BUT ONLY IF HE AGREES WITH IT.
RoyHudd you are a

ORAC

The point is that that liquid explosives were to be inserted into drink/shaving/toothpaste containers and brought into the airport and onto an aircraft. Common electrical devices, such as ipods, electronic keys, PDAs etc, were to be modified to act as trigger devices. The security precautions are to stop these getting through - not the genuine article.

So, yes, you can buy what you like in duty free and take it from there. If you can whip up some liquid explosives using the items available in the shops and rewire a brand new ipod as a trigger before boarding - I doubt anything could stop you.....

LD Max

This works from the assumption that permitting carry-on baggage is putting people at risk. Idiots carrying explosives is what puts people at risk. Western governments imposing their stupid foreign policies on the middle east is putting people at risk.

Safety is relative. The mere act of getting on a plane is inherently unsafe without terrorism factored in. The journey to the airport in the car is even less safe. Smoking is unsafe. Drinking is unsafe. Crossing the road is unsafe.

If we accepted all the draconian measures that would be necessary to make our lives entirely risk free, we'd be living in a "nanny state" at best, or all locked up in padded rooms for our own safety at worst.

Therefore we accept certain risks in order to benefit from the services we demand. The best we can do is mitigate the risks, but go too far (as in this case) and the service ceases to be of any value. You want to make flying 100% safe from terrorism? Then ban ALL luggage and make us fly naked after shoving a metal detector up our ar*es at the gate.

As it is, why would the chief executive of Megacorp spend £3000 on a business class ticket to NY if he can't carry on with his business during the flight? Airlines depend on the business and first class pax to make routes pay. Right now, the airlines have just lost a huge chunk of revenue stream. That means Cattle Class tickets will have to subsidise the loss of business class so you and I can expect to be paying £1000 a ticket before long, if the ban on carry ons aren't abolished.

I'm not sure I want to pay even normal prices if I can't take my toys on board, because as far as I'm concerned that's an essential part of the service I'm paying for.

All they needed to do was to stop drinks being taken airside, so all carry on drinks had to be purchased in the departure lounge. They already x-ray my laptop, case, calculator, mobile phone and sniff them for explosives.

...and I'm quite happy with that level of security. At the end of the day, if some B'std does blow me out of the sky, then my time's up anyway. I'm insured. My family will get over it. Death is just another part of life. In the meantime I want the freedom to live it.

Cyrano

From Ireland (for example), normal hand baggage rules apply today, except:

• Pax travelling to the UK to take a connecting flight there are told not to carry hand baggage (because of the difficulties they will have with it at the UK airport)
• Pax to the US are not allowed to buy duty-free alcohol or perfume (apparently due to new US requirement)

Point-to-point pax from Ireland to the UK have no new restrictions on hand baggage.

Final 3 Greens

LD Max

As another FQTV, I totally support your position.

Well said.

A330ismylittlebaby

Which brings another point, shouldn't ships be as stringent as this.

Final 3 Greens

A330ismy littlebaby

I think that Airships are even more dangerous.

They are ships that go in the air.

Can you imagine how much damage a 600m long ULCC could cause if it dived into the middle of Widnes?

El Grifo

I earn my crust hopping round the planet with a camera strapped to my face.

Trust me, a film safe was never an option and is even less so now.

Since I progressed to Digi around four years ago, this has never been a problem. As I said earlier, I now bang all my cameras into a resin plastic, highly padded, rolling case and sling it in the hold.

If it gets nicked I am in deep $hit. Although I am fully insured, it would be impossible to replace quickly enough in say the Maldives or similar.

One simply has to take a chance.

Dump film, go digital. It is a quantum leap for photographers.

A330ismylittlebaby

No, i meant cruiseliners, we need a bit of security to keep us safe. I think we should have background checks on people renting flats because that's what these people are doing. They seem to be renting flats.

drichard

Why stop with planes and boats? - In Madrid and London it was Trains, buses have been targeted in London and India in the past.

Serious question though - what restrictions on hand luggage are being imposed for flights out of non-uk airports? (thinking in particular about europe departures across the pond). I'm seriously considering eurostar to Paris/Brussels or a fast ferry to Holland (for Schipol) etc. and picking up a flight from there.

I do have sympathy for aircrew (drivers and conductors ), I do find it ridiculous that you are stripped of sharp objects, water, food and then given the keys to the a/c. You're either trustworthy or you're not. I think seperate security screening for aircrew is eminently sensible.

Others in this thread have mentioned breaking bottles and setting fire to the contents, yes, I thought about that within a day or 2 of 9/11, in the past 5 years, it seems security have never caught on to this "threat". Why why why can you not pay for your duty free at the airport and collect it on landing at your destination. It could even be in a bonded warehouse at your arrival location for common items, meaning it doesn't need to travel with you, for non-common items, it could be packed in the hold. (For my last flight back from USA, you paid for your DF in the shop, and it was taken to the gate for collection as you boarded - surely this could be put in a box in the hold and you collect on arrival instead?)

There are many other ways of getting stuff through security, or using "safe" items in an unsafe manner - I shall not mention or discuss them here, they really are obvious and I don't want to put ideas into anyone's head.

I am disturbed to hear comments that x-ray m/c cannot determine the difference in liquids - I am a little sceptical here. I have done some work on these m/c and having seen their capabilities, I have a lot of faith in what they CAN do. For example, a tub of sugar and a tub of salt look VERY different.

To those who say you can have a 2-part bottle with different substances in the same bottle, the construction of the bottle should be obvious on x-ray - it would need the operator to be even more vigilant though - and heaven knows, they have a difficult enough job as it is.

A spectral analysis x-ray m/c would tell you exactly what is in everything.

As PAX I have no problem with SENSIBLE, PROPORTIONATE, security checks. My gut feelong at the moment is that we are seeing an overreaction, but permanent changes will be made.

<edit for typos>

Final 3 Greens

No, i meant cruiseliners

Ohmygod, cruiseliners fly too?????????

Superpilot

Well Done LD Max, a very enlightened post. Thought provoking comments such as yours are much needed after reading Bull**** factored articles in papers such as The Standard :Puke:

lexxity

FYI - When you book a cruise you are required to give the company your passport details, full name, address, date of birth and home address before your tickets are sent out. I imagine that the lines are not gathering this information for the fun of it.

Unless you meant carry on, in which case we would have lots of nudist ships.

Now back to the thread.

paulc

I know 100% that my camera and laptop are not a threat to anybody but I cannot prove it to the satisfaction of the airlines so if I wish to fly I have to take the risk of it being stolen or smashed or not take it. I would be quite happy to have laptop battery and camera battery in checked luggage but would not be keen on having expensive lenses etc treated as normal luggage.

If they want to take security seriously then every non food outlet airside should also be shut but that would hurt BAA too much. I can vouch for my camera / laptop but have no idea if anything I buy airside could have been unknowingly tampered with.

LD Max

I guess you haven't had the time to read the many posts on here which give well considered arguments against the OTT security reaction at the airports. Consider not the mere inconvenience of it, but the damage it will do to the industry. Make no mistake, the aviation industry is the prime target of these fanatics. Stop people travelling and you stop international commerce in its tracks. You disrupt one of the cornerstones of western civilisation - the freedom to travel, and you're on your way to setting the economy and the infrastructure back 20 years.

The security measures are assisting the terrorists in that objective.

Oh... and as this is a Pilot's forum - don't forget the majority of folks here depend on this industry for their immediate livelihoods. We don't want to see it blown up either.

LD Max

You sure about that? Bin Laden actually told you he did it did he? Or is he on the US payroll perhaps? Anyone ever tell you Princess Diana died in a Car accident? The only thing I'm sure about is she died in a car...

Don't underestimate what our governments are capable of. There's always a hidden agenda. Look at all the things the US and UK government have been able to do since 911 in the name of the "War against Terror". Afghanistan, Iraq. Look at how Israel is able to decimate the Lebenon now with US and UK support because of "Hezbolah" rockets. Who says Hezbolah is behind it? Yeah, blame the Syrians. Right.

Consider if the western governments were to create a terror threat all by themselves, they can then act with impunity in the name of "self defence".

derekvader

Indeed, I don't see how they can guarantee the integrity of every single person that works at all the W. H. Smiths, Burger Kings, and much smaller chains that are airside, or the people that put the food trollies on the planes. I am sure the individuals that work in the airside shops etc are security scanned when they arrive for work (well I hope they are) but is every single stock delivery or small parcel in the post that the shops receive opened up and properly checked? It's not at all inconceivable that one of the shop workers, especially in the small shops with short management chains so fairly easy to know who's going to open the incoming stock or mail, could be bent enough to get stuff airside one way or another to give to passengers getting through regular security.

If BAA and other airports are not willing to impose a totally sterile airside environment (which they won't be, for profit reasons) I totally can't see the point of draconian restrictions on passenger baggage. It also seems pointless to do it on flights leaving the UK but leave inbound flights from Europe unaffected.

That said, I would STRONGLY welcome simple enforcement of sensible cabin baggage rules, i.e. keep passengers to a single small bag of just their clearly valuable stuff and what they might reasonably need to entertain themselves or do their work in flight. It's high time something was done about the ridiculous wheeled contraptions that many passengers get away with carrying on and taking five minutes each to cram into the overhead bins.

Flying Lawyer

Scamera77
Crossed wires. I wasn’t slinging mud at you, or trying to patronise you. My comment was about a minority in JB (from where this thread was moved) who can’t seem to resist making a certain type of post even in sensible discussions of a serious topic.
Sorry if I caused the misunderstanding.
I’m pleased we're in agreement over several points even if we disagree over your proposal.




bjcc
I don’t accept that the question I suggested is only justified “if one only looks at it superficially.”
On the contrary, exploring all factors which might cause terrorist activity must IMHO be an essential element of any thorough assessment of how to reduce the risk of it happening.

I didn't say it was “the whole story.” Scamera invited comments on his proposal and said he was interested in other people’s ideas. I suggested one.

FL

SXB

Posted by Flying Lawyer

FL, Just to come back to your comment about EHCR (which, for anyone who has not heard of this organisation, is the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg) I think it's fair to point out that the Court delivers its judgements within the limitations under which it operates. Like any court it may deliver a judgement which it considers ridiculous but, on occasion, it may not have a choice.

The make up of the judges at EHCR is more political than any court in the UK, said judges are proposed (minimum of three) by each member state (with some exceptions) Countries like the UK can be trusted to 'play the game' and propose experienced and appropriate professionals, who do an excellent job without any political interference. Some countries, however, do not play the game. Our judges here earn about €20,000 per month (plus a lot of other allowences and everyone working here, including me , pays no tax) In some countries this is an awful lot of money. Now I am just a humble servant and it is not for me to suggest that some countries propose judges who may be politically sympathetic to their governments in Moscow, Ankara or Kiev.

That said the vast majority of judgements are fair and just, due to the way judgements are arrived at (it's a number of judges and not just one, but there is a degree negotiating between the judges as a case is rarely being heard on the basis of just one just one convention violation so they may agree to one violation while dropping another though this not the way it should work)

It's also worth pointing out that EHCR is wholly funded (via the Council of Europe) by the member governments. Apologies to FL who will be well aware of how the Court works, my explanations are for others to understand how it works.

bjcc

FL

The form of terrorist threat we face today has a cause which will not be chaned by having a different PM, or by Bush leaving office. The Policy of the US, or the UK is not relevent, except in that it is probably more publicly alive to the threat.

I go back to the mid 90's, where having sat through a dull lecture on dangerous dogs act (irrelevent to the job I was doing at the time) only to be brought out of the stupour by a Special Branch Officer, who, was either blessed with ESP, or telling us what had been gathered inteligence wise.

What he said, in view of whats happened since was a big wake up call, uncanny in fact.

Now that was all long before GW2, Bush and at the time Blair was, if I recall correctly Shadow Home Sec.

The issues are long term, not caused by either GW2, or the Bush & Blair show. Nor by involvement in Afgannistan. Its purley the desire to spread Islamic Fundimentalism.

I grant you, the events in the ME, the attitude of Bush & Blair may have made life easier for the recruitment of those willing to carry out attacks on the UK, but those attacks were always going to happen.

All that is different is there is a public 'justification' for these acts, which detracts from and hides the real agenda, hence the comment about superficial examination cause.