Security Anomalies
 

I try hard to ensure the least problem in security but the variability and obvious absurdities vex me.

Why did I trip an alarm passing through an inspection portal at Heathrow but nowhere else?

Nothing on my person that is prescribed or unusual. Apart from regular clothing (underwear, trousers, shoes and shirt) and aviator style thin metal eyeglasses, my pocket contents were tissues, two passports and a wallet containing paper money and credit cards and personal ID.

Could it have been the glasses, or the RFID chips in the passports and credit cards?
I'm not trusting enough to separate myself from them by placing them in my carry-on (too many reported examples of theft by the examiners worldwide). Consequently, knowing that I comply with all regulations, being put through the whole body scanner I find to be an unwarranted and wholly unnecessary invasion of my privacy. Especially as the result - surprise, surprise - was nothing that required examination or aroused any interest at all.:ugh:.

FF there is a certain amount of randomness including in the system. Out of a group of 100 nudists a certain percentage would set off the alarm.

And no, there is no fixed percentage, even that is random

Archways can be set to be less or more sensitive, (although within a given range, clearly - you can't dial down the sensitivity so much that a threat item is missed). All archway units are tested daily with a standard test piece to ensure that the minimum standard of sensitivity is being met.
If the unit sensitivity is set quite high, your foil pack of chewing gum might be enough to alarm, and yet at another archway it'll pass through.

As ExXB alludes to, they can also be programmed to alarm in a certain percentage of cases randomly, and it's likely this feature that you're experiencing. Airports use this feature to prompt their staff for at least the minimum number of hand searches and / or full body scans required by local regulation. And there is a number... although it differs by regulator, and isn't made public.

Gate sensitivity
 

A few years ago I got fed up with setting off the gates, so I wrote
to the authority (CAA I think). I was informed (surprisingly) that there is a
standard for sensitivity, but most airports set the sensitivity to
the maximum.

As I said above you, there's a range with a minimum and a maximum that can't be exceeded in either direction. Inspectors test this during visits.
Airports typically don't like too many false alarms as it affects throughput adversely, which is no good for anyone. I'm not aware of any that purposefully set a maximum sensitivity.

When I regularly travelled LTN~IOM, the arch at IOM always reported the boots I wore - but LTN never did. I remarked on this to the IOM staff who reassured me that ALL archways are set to the SAME sensitivity. Yeah right!

It is my premise that: A large part of how the arch is set, is down to the "Cover your @rse and set it higher so we don't miss anything."

Each and every detector should be the same, but they are not. They should be calibrated in situ with a standard target set at various heights. On the day they are tested I'm sure they come up to standard. But once the calibrator leaves, the variables set in. The goon holding a tray of metal objects, a passenger and their baggage near the sensor, barriers, tables and chairs are moved and so on. I'm also sure other environmental factors play a part in tripping the alarm as does 'wander' in the calibration. Best advice is go along with the show. Security personnel are not selected for their personal charm or ability to make a rational argument based on fact, just to follow orders. If the machine goes 'ping', just like one of Pavlov's dogs, they follow a prescribed process.

So yes there is a standard, but only when the machine was tested.

They're tested daily PM.

Correct. And quite right too, I hope you'd agree that it's only logical to have a standard procedure for any alarm... similar to how you follow a checklist when your machine "goes ping" right?

Or do you eschew your SOPs and checklists because you have "personal charm and ability to make a rational argument based on fact"?

I've often noticed that really busy airports (eg T5 LHR) pass me through when later, carrying exactly the same clobber a smaller airport ( eg ABZ) will give an alarm - conclusion - the smaller places change the settings to keep busy..........

Of course the system for X-Rays is set to randomly choose a certain number of bags to hand search at all airports no matter how many the operator passes as OK

The bag searches irratate me more than anything else.

My local airport seems to change the rules at random.

I have a folding key which seems to upset some x-ray handlers, but not others. I try and remember to unfold it- not always with success.

Other occasions it's all wires out, all wires in etc....

My daughter occasionally helps. She's not averse to putting a bottle of water in my bag when I'm not looking when we are out and about. I then pick the same bag up not realising, and security look at me like the donut that I feel.

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

Got stopped at Humberside flying back to ABZ with a Stanley knife blade in my briefcase (not I hasten to add knowingly). Had managed to get through ABZ that morning with no problem. A "small" airport may be a relative term.

Gate sensitivity
 

I only reported what the authorities told me.
Should I have believed them ?

Apparently, it is Brits taking it on holidayand being over the limit for liquids/gels.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/marmite-co...145856631.html

PH, why would anyone attempt to inport it to the UK. AFAIK there is a glut on the market, understandably so.

But Mr Laarbruch, the "standard" rules are different at every airport in Britain. With one exception of one UK airport, I typically find UK security staff unpleasant and offensive. I fully understand they have "rules" and they base everything they do upon these rules that without exception they claim are standard across Europe. That is clearly incorrect. An example can be seen when armed police officers pass through security. At some airports they are patted down. Why? to check to make sure they are not carrying prohibited items airside, like liquids. At some airports they are not. Some airports insist on local passes for police, others don't. Every airport is different. Then they assume I should know what the "rules" are "because I should know better" yet the rules are not published, presumably for "security reasons". So exactly how should I know which rules apply at which airport for the shift that is actually on? The icing on the cake is that you have no comeback. Unlike the police, civil servants, hospital staff etc. airport security staff appear to be answerable to nobody.

So please don't think for one minute I don't want security. But I'd like pleasant people sticking to one consistent set of realistic and practical rules. I don't think that is too much to ask.

Mrs NC and her best chum insist on taking their quota on our annual far-flung jaunts. For some odd reason, I really wish it was our luggage that gets lost.

The last couple of times travelling with Mrs J have resulted in her being pulled aside after the detector for a quick pat down and explosive swab. That's Zurich and Heathrow.
We always empty our pockets as we have never heard of examiners stealing (especially as you are present if a search takes place) as in the US you have to.
Does Mrs J feel victimised or that her privacy has been invaded, no its a small inconvenience that's necessary.

PM: I've noticed that this is a subject that causes you genuine and frequent annoyance, I'm not sure there's a great deal anyone can do about that of course and I've no desire to get into any form of argument.

What I will say is that I fly through EU and UK airports around 4 times a week and don't really find the level of surly attitudes that you do. I find it all pretty painless. It could possibly be how I approach the screening point, overall I find the people in security are pleasant when I'm pleasant. I'm not saying you're not, but I'm finding it difficult to understand why our experiences differ so much.

I do agree that there can be some small variance in interpretation, but airports (like airlines) are separate companies and so the situation is no different to your airline having an SOP for a given situation which differs slightly to another UK airline's SOP, even though they're both based on the same EASA reg. (Fuelling with passengers comes to mind - No airlines agree on that). I can't get annoyed about it because it's nothing that impacts on me. Armed police are exempt from screening when responding to an incident, (EU and UK regulation) but at other times *may* be patted down to ensure that there's no abuse of carriage of other prohibited items. (DfT guidance to airports, not a regulation). Either way, I'm not sure why you'd let that worry you.

At my last (UK) airline part of the job was liaising between carrier and airport to investigate instances where staff / crew had ended up in fractious situations, and I have to say that as the carrier representative it was frustrating and often embarrassing. The CCTV and audio evidence of incidents showed starkly that there are a minority of crew that will go into staff search actively looking for a fight. In 5 years there was only one altercation caused at the outset by an aggressive and rude security guard, sadly all the remainder (probably 15 cases) were caused by rude and aggressive crew, and naturally some other human beings will respond to that in kind.

I note that one of your major frustrations is not knowing the rules (I suspect it's the more detailed parts of regulation are what you're considering, since the basic rules are straightforward and understood by most pax). I just wonder if you'd benefit from approaching your airline's head of security with a list of stuff that's always bugged you? You might find that a chat explains things that you maybe currently have a half understanding of, and it might satisfy some of your questions that you pose on here, and hopefully get rid of some of those frustrations. As UK flight crew you're in a privileged position of having a specialist in your company who can support and help you, why not take advantage of that?

Passengers pay my wages. I work for them and I'm just one small person in a large team that aims to make the whole experience as safe, secure, pleasant and hopefully as painless as possible. Once a passenger's first hurdle, the check-in has been overcome, the second is security. By ensuring there is always a queue even that has now become a money making process by charging for 'queue jumping'. Then the shouting starts. Security staff are there every day and they want just a simple life. This means that they want people to quickly conform. Quite want they want though is difficult to determine because they are always shouting and difficult to understand. Rarely are useful signs placed to help passengers prepare for the process. So then the low level abuse starts when they infer passengers are stupid for not knowing what they should be doing, trying to justify their requests by referring to alleged 'standard' laws. This becomes hostile very quickly because quite reasonably, people ask questions which appears to upset far too many security staff. There should be no surprise that this detrimentally affects other passengers. This is no way to start what should and certainly used to be an enjoyable method of transport.

And while I'm here, how many airports have properly designed security screening areas? There is too little space, the run-on and run off areas are too small and the through-put is too little because insufficient staff are on duty. Also next time you pass through, look at how many personal discussions are taking place amongst the staff. It's a normal human thing to do but it means they are not concentrating on the job in hand which is allegedly looking after our security.

When I pass through security I'm always pleasant but will say little or nothing and always comply. The less time they spend with me, the more they can spend looking after us. But mentally I won't accept that what they are doing is little more than window dressing. And as the OP commented, the windows are dressed differently at each airport. Worse, the huge holes and gaps that exist in the current UK system means that most of the work of security is pointless. Once these things have been plugged (and I'm not talking about rocket science here) then I'll be a happier person.


ps. Marmite is lovely stuff. I wish it was sold in 99ml containers.

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.

Might not be anything to do with 100ml rule - honey has its own restrictions.
https://www.food.gov.uk/business-industry/imports/honey

Not sure of how many grams per 'heart' but I have taken these with me before.
http://www.thebeardedbakery.com/wp-c...2stno1_500.jpg

^
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

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.
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

Who says social media doesn't work?

That from news, this from LCY twitter:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGEqYBLXsAAzK-1.jpg

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

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

OK, as you have spent the time, I'll try to answer each an every point you have made.
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.
You are correct and I totally agree. But I dislike the attitude that typically goes along with the procedure.
I disagree, it's a huge variation.Probably the real culprits.

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.

Thanks PM. And apologies, I'd gathered you worked for a UK carrier. I also work for a foreign carrier these days.

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?

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?

"What actually is this excessive security trying to protect"

Politicians for a start.............. remember Tanks to Heathrow?

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.

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.

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

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! :}