UK security & a woman's handbag

[fyrefli]

Originally Posted by lexxity

Don't worry this utter nonsense request was refused and immediately reported to our superiors who will then take it up.

Excellent!

[eastern wiseguy]

Flew through BHX the other evening.....Mrs EW was told to put her handbag inside a plastic bag she was carrying as one item only was allowed ....guess how long she adhered to that rule?.

On a similar point Mrs EW has become totally hacked off at wandering around in her bare/stocking feet across heaven knows what crap in order that her shoes may be x rayed. She asked at BFS for a pair of covers (a la shower cap ) for her feet...and was lectured about rules ...and how they were only enforcing them.The security bod totally missed the point.

[Sir Thomas]

BHX

Right,
all you security people on here, quick question.
Why is it that Birmingham is the only place (between several airports all over Europe -that includes the UK-) where i have to take my shoes off every time? Along with every other passenger?
Ciao

[Avman]

It's a Birmingham Airport management initiative to encourage the travelling public to wash their feet and change their socks more often

[TightSlot]

Amongst Crew, BHX is notorious as being 'different' on security: Whatever policy the UK adopts, BHX will always go one step further (and are proud to do so). There is nothing too petty, stupid and pointless for them to consider implementing assisted by a special kind of jobsworth mentality that brings a particular and lasting dark despair to the soul of the passing traveller.








Sorry - they just wind me up - I'll take another pill and lie down for a bit

[vanderaj]

Originally Posted by Globaliser

Um, yes, this is the whole point of a rule that ensures that only one bag per person goes through the machine. That's the only point at which the restriction matters and the only point at which it's applied.
How many bags per person do you think the security screeners should have to look at?

What is the purpose of putting something through a machine? To detect dangerous objects which should not fly.

These rules make no sense. They are creating delays and angering the people who are paying for the service. More to the point, this particular "security" measure reduces actual security.

Putting one bag in another bag will make it that much harder for the underpaid and overworked screening staff to make out dangerous objects. These folks rely on the machine highlighting suspicious objects, and the more objects in a bag, the worse it gets. The XRay screening devices look for molecular weights and particular object edges. When they find them, they are highlighted in different colors. The screeners mostly look for the colors - this is why people seem to occasionally get through with dangerous objects.

Airport security should be safe, efficient and effective, and able to cope with known and previously unknown threats. This measure is none of these. Worse, it costs money, staff, and time for all concerned to implement a useless control, when that money, staff and time could be used for real security.

Real security professionals HATE the term "security" being applied to the theatre at airports:

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archive...rity_ro_1.html

This, and many other measures implemented is NOT about security, it's about being seen to be doing something, no matter how ineffectual it actually is. It's a waste of our time and money. It's no wonder many folks now get the train or the bus rather than spend HOURS at an airport.

The physical security folks who dream up these ridiculous controls must bring their skills up to date. A decent threat model with defense in depth would screen passengers properly once, and not require secondary re-screening at gates, re-screening previously screened pax from connecting flights, and would have coped with the threat posed by the UK would be alleged bombers with no changes. Yet, we are continuously re-screened (badly) for no purpose and the changes made post the UK arrests make absolutely no sense to explosive experts and chemists alike.

Security theatre, pah!

Andrew (who is a security professional by day and too frequent pax)

[hotmetal]

Originally Posted by ShamRoc

"The two jars were binned by security (no doubt to be retrieved later),....."
Hmmm... an interesting point; are all of the items confiscated destroyed or are they now "perks of the job"? Will the marmalade end up on the table in the security operatives restroom being spread by the confiscated penknives?!

I was speaking with a part time security person at LHR who just works weekends and he says that some just keep it all for themselves. In the immediate aftermath of the 'liquid bomb plot' at LHR when everything like cameras and mp3 players were being confiscated he said that staff were just dividing up their 'takings' at the end of the day. He was as appalled as any reasonable person.
I don't believe they have the legal authority to seize property anyway if you don't voluntarily give it up. Of course you can't go airside with prohibited items but they can't have carte blanche to steal property from people.

[eibun]

dublin

DUB security give everything confiscated to a specific charity - well done boys and girls at DUB.

LHR and other airports should do the same and advertise the fact; it will make it easier on the PAX to accept.

[zed3]

hmmm...pot of marmalade with laxative mixed in ... ready to be confiscated . Oh I'm evil !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[hotmetal]

Somebody suggested shampoo bottle with Immac hair remover in. Very naughty.

[carousel]

Sorry to disapoint

Originally Posted by ShamRoc

"The two jars were binned by security (no doubt to be retrieved later),....."
Hmmm... an interesting point; are all of the items confiscated destroyed or are they now "perks of the job"? Will the marmalade end up on the table in the security operatives restroom being spread by the confiscated penknives?!

Its heartbreaking to see but all surrendered goods (including marmalade) are sent for disposal. For security staff to help themselves is inviting instant suspension pending possible dismisal, and as all screening areas are under constant cctv, you have to ask is it worth your job for a jar of marmalade.

[IB4138]

Mrs EW has become totally hacked off at wandering around in her bare/stocking feet across heaven knows what crap in order that her shoes may be x rayed. She asked at BFS for a pair of covers (a la shower cap ) for her feet...and was lectured about rules .

Similar lack of understanding at Manchester, when I requested a shoe horn to get my shoes back on.

They also would not answer as to how often the carpets were cleaned and what steps are taken to prevent the passing on of foot disorders?

[radeng]

>Mrs EW has become totally hacked off at wandering around in her bare/stocking feet across heaven knows what crap in order that her shoes may be x rayed<
I understand the Immigration union rep at LGW complained for exactly that reason and so they started providing plastic foot coverings. Lack of foot coverings could possibly lead an interesting claim for compensation because of a Health and Safety failure to protect the public. Wonder if a complaint to the HSE would get taken up?

[Globaliser]

Originally Posted by vanderaj

Putting one bag in another bag will make it that much harder for the underpaid and overworked screening staff to make out dangerous objects. These folks rely on the machine highlighting suspicious objects, and the more objects in a bag, the worse it gets. The XRay screening devices look for molecular weights and particular object edges. When they find them, they are highlighted in different colors. The screeners mostly look for the colors - this is why people seem to occasionally get through with dangerous objects.

OK, so maybe you might like to answer the question I posed:-

How many bags per person do you think the security screeners should have to look at?

[Curious Pax]

In that sense, does it matter? Security look at a steady stream of bags, and whether it is 100 bags generated by 100 people, or 40 doesn't make any difference. IF passengers were trained to be prepared for the 1 bag rule before leaving home, then you could argue a beneficial impact on queuing time (possibly). Other than that leave it to the airlines, who have much more interest in restricting the overall quantity of hand baggage due to the storage/safety constraints in the cabin.

[Globaliser]

Originally Posted by Curious Pax

In that sense, does it matter? Security look at a steady stream of bags, and whether it is 100 bags generated by 100 people, or 40 doesn't make any difference.

But if security can only look at 100 bags per minute, then it's the difference between processing 100 passengers per minute or 40 passengers per minute. So yes, it does matter.

[flyingfemme]

Originally Posted by Globaliser

How many bags per person do you think the security screeners should have to look at?

As many as the airline will let me carry on. I am the customer. I paid for the ticket and the extra "security" charges.

If there aren't enough people to do the screening in a suitable timeframe then they will have to hire some more.

[skydriller]

Originally Posted by Globaliser

But if security can only look at 100 bags per minute, then it's the difference between processing 100 passengers per minute or 40 passengers per minute. So yes, it does matter.

And this is my problem as a pax?

No, its the airport that should be speeding up the screening process by adding more security points, or even manning those that are already there would help in most airports....

Alternatively we could go back to sensible security checks everywhere.....but thats just far too sensible isnt it, especially with all the money to be made from "security".

[Globaliser]

Originally Posted by skydriller

No, its the airport that should be speeding up the screening process by adding more security points, or even manning those that are already there would help in most airports....

For sure, that would be better. We can all agree on that.

But while we aren't being offered that option, we have the current rules. Are these rules "senseless", "pointless", "meaningless" (as so many people keep on ranting)? No, of course they aren't: They make absolute sense given the limitations which the airports are (rightly or wrongly) working under.

If we're going to criticise, let's criticise the true targets rather than taking kneejerk and wrong potshots at mere symptoms of the real problem.

[AUTOGLIDE]

It's the way the individual airport deals with it. In a proper civilised country, like Germany, you go to FRA or MUC and see scanners in double figures, all manned and working...and barely a queue in sight. You go through the checks and be done with it. In stupid backward countries, like the UK and USA, pax are expected to stand in silly queues behind mobile barriers like at the post office.
My companies solution? Amazing how effective video conferencing can be.