Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight) If you are regularly a passenger on any airline then why not post your questions here?

Security Anomalies

Old 1st Aug 2017, 10:50
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I'm sad to see you've addressed none of my points PM, and you simply continue on your self-damaging course of half-informed ranting. I feel I'm peeing firmly into the wind so I'll leave it there. As I say, I'm not here to argue. All the best to you, and try to take it easy.
Laarbruch72 is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2017, 10:58
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Perth
Posts: 154
Received 5 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by pax britanica
I had a minor security anomoly recently

Returning to LHR from yon I had two tiny pots of honey which weighed 125 Grammes each. They were confiscated (very charmingly I have to add by the very cute young lady from security even though they are actually only 87ml of liquid and I thought the rule was no liquids over 100ml not 100g.

My french isnt up to specific gravity issues but again it shows its all a pretty random process. It will be interesting to see what these Aussie nutters looking to gas people on a plane were planning to use and if that will impinge the 100ml rule
Might not be anything to do with 100ml rule - honey has its own restrictions.
https://www.food.gov.uk/business-industry/imports/honey
Speedywheels is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2017, 11:07
  #23 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 67
Posts: 10,126
Received 58 Likes on 48 Posts
Not sure of how many grams per 'heart' but I have taken these with me before.
PAXboy is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2017, 12:31
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
^
report I saw earlier this week said that marmite was one of the two most confiscated items at UK airport security.......

EDIT: I now see on page 1 of this thread that I was beaten to it. Apologies

Last edited by HamishMcBush; 1st Aug 2017 at 12:42.
HamishMcBush is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2017, 14:01
  #25 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 67
Posts: 10,126
Received 58 Likes on 48 Posts
It's only going to get worse, because no country wants tospend more money. So it will have to wait until enough MPs have been delayed for anything to happen.
Passengers facing four-hour security queues at some European airports
This article is on a Europe wide problem but new UK border controls in a couple of years time will certainly not help.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...opean-airports
PAXboy is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2017, 15:19
  #26 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 67
Posts: 10,126
Received 58 Likes on 48 Posts
Who says social media doesn't work?

London City Airport yesterday held a "Marmite amnesty" after it was revealed the product was being confiscated at security. People travelling with jars of Marmite in their hand luggage that exceeded the 100ml liquid limit were able to swap it for a 70g miniature. The airport said it may repeat the move if it proved successful.
That from news, this from LCY twitter:
Love or hate it? The most commonly confiscated branded food item is @Marmite. Today we're giving out travel-friendly 70g jars! #LCYxMarmite
PAXboy is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2017, 15:50
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: se england
Posts: 1,570
Likes: 0
Received 44 Likes on 20 Posts
Speedywheels

Well I certainly didnt know that , you can learn something every day on Prune can't you.

My awful typing meant you couldnt tell where I embarked it was Lyon not yon as I typed and therefore in the EU so legal. Its just the 100ml or 100gr that got me
pax britanica is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2017, 16:59
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: U.K
Posts: 89
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Interesting differing points of view between Laarbruch72 and piltdown man. Be interesting to see who's opinions of security most people find more common.
I find PMs experiences more the norm especially in the UK
simmple is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2017, 18:42
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 67
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OK, as you have spent the time, I'll try to answer each an every point you have made.
Archways can be set to be less or more sensitive...
You made the point well. If I ping either the threshold or the random selector I get extra treatment. So be it, that's life.
I hope you'd agree that it's only logical to have a standard procedure for any alarm...
You are correct and I totally agree. But I dislike the attitude that typically goes along with the procedure.
I do agree that there can be some small variance in interpretation.
I disagree, it's a huge variation.

DfT guidance to airports, not a regulation
Probably the real culprits.

"...sadly all the remainder (probably 15 cases) were caused by rude and aggressive crew..."
Unfortunately, I think you are correct. Too many crew try to take on security at the checkpoint. A pointless and futile proposition.

Lastly, I'm not UK crew. Our security department despairs at UK security. They believe it is just a cost of doing business in the UK. And I have tried to speak with the powers that be. I left with no doubt about what they thought of me.
Piltdown Man is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2017, 21:45
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Thanks PM. And apologies, I'd gathered you worked for a UK carrier. I also work for a foreign carrier these days.
Laarbruch72 is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2017, 00:57
  #31 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Out of Town
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As I read through the response to my initial post I'm struck by several points that confirm my own observation.

Security screening is variable, inconsistent and IMHO often appearing wrongheaded. No doubt experts will tell me that this is intentional, by keeping the bad guys guessing, but I don't buy that. What such variabilty creates is delay and crowding, and not infrequently, anger. The number of false positives sounded by those entry portals needs to be significantly reduced.

Articles have been written suggesting much of this passenger scanning is ineffective, that few real perpetrators are actually caught, but many legitimate travellers are inconvenienced. I have a fund of stories but I'll relate just two. 1). A few years back at IAD, huge delay in security caused by one individual reading every liquid container to ensure that the packaging read 100ml or less (Clearly no clue as to what that volume looked like). 2. In Orgeon, being wanded all over to identify why it sqawked when passing over my shirt pocket. Took him a some time but he eventally found it - it was the staple that held together the two pages of my flight itinerary!!!

I admit my security scanning fuse is short, especially short in the UK, and agree with those who've observed that 'attitude' is most prevalent there. I try hard to comply but have yet to receive satisfactory replies to the question "What caused the problem?" which I ask so that I can avoid delay in the future i.e. when I can get any reply at all.

Finally: I despair when some little old lady says to me "Oooh I feel so much safer now with all this security. Don't you?" To which I honestly reply "No, I don't". The 'Why' goes back to my statement above about crowding and exclusion.
If I wanted to cause damage and destruction why would I go to the bother of trying to pass through a security gate when I have possibly hundreds of potential victims waiting outside. Examples are many: In the Middle East examples of attacks on lines of personnel awaiting recuitment or pay cheques. Why attack a train when I can do more damage on the crowded concourse among those waiting.

You in the UK are very familiar with attacks outside secured areas (Manchester, Westminster Bridge, Borough Market). Ideas and Ideology travel quickly and very effectively and, it seems to me, most terrorists are today 'home grown' with little need to physically infiltrate a country via a commercial airliner. Drug smuggling, and what else, is being committed by those workers already on the secure(?)'Airside'. Hardened cockpit doors that can exclude pilots from regaining entry, anyone? The most egregious recent example being July 1st Canada Day Celebrations on Ottawa's Parliament Hill. In pouring rain 1,000's lined up for 4-6 hours and more, to get through to the secured stage show area. Why the delay? Security requiring the removal of rain gear for scanning, only two entrances all constrained by zig-zag barriers. Imagine someone creating a panic, wouldn't have needed any device, just how many would have been trampled to death. Clearly hundreds.

I submit that in many instances this overreaching effort at security creates the potential for far greater problems, and I ask the final question. "What actually is this excessive security trying to protect" The people or the show? The passengers or the aircraft? The people or the infrastructure? The politicians and their re-election?
FractitiousFreight is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2017, 12:29
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 435
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Have passed through 2 different terminals at LHR in recent weeks. At one my carry on was pulled aside for a further check but not at the other. Same things in the carry on. I think what annoy passengers most is the lack of consistency over security. It might also help if the signs were bigger / clearer and better positioned for what needs to be removed ie shoes etc. As for marmite why not put it in checked luggage rather than carry on?
paulc is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2017, 07:43
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"What actually is this excessive security trying to protect"

Politicians for a start.............. remember Tanks to Heathrow?
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2017, 08:55
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: U.K./nigeria
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I used to have a 'crew tag' on my carry-on, every time I went through a particular Scottish airport my bag was emptied, swabbed etc, with a smarmy smirk on the operators face, took the tag off and other indentifying marks, never been stopped again.
bluesafari is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2017, 10:40
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Soon to be out of the EU.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Security keeps us safe who work on a plane, our passengers and those on the ground who will be hit when the inevitable happens. If you're not happy with that, may I suggest Eurostar?

I only hope when it happens it does so somewhere remote like MetroJet or over the sea like AI182.
HeartyMeatballs is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2017, 13:00
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How many terrorists have ever brought down a plane using Marmite?

Someone needs to take a step back - one person (a headcase) on one occasion tries to take some alleged explosive onto a plane in the soles of their trainers and now every passenger (and possibly crew) worldwide have to take their shoes and belts off to go through security for every flight? IMHO utter madness
HamishMcBush is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2017, 18:23
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So what's your deterrent replacement going to be?

All for extensive profiling? Or just trust everyone like an EU open border which always gets shown for its weaknesses when exactly these type of individuals exploit its freedoms.

Let's get rid of the perimeter fence as well!
T250 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.