Airport Security (Merged) - Effects on Crew/Staff

[Llademos]

Originally Posted by Captain Airclues

On the 747 freighter we regularly carry several tons of flammable liquids and explosives. As many of these items are not allowed on passenger aircraft they are loaded on the main deck so that I have full access to them in flight. However, I'm not allowed access to my tube of toothpaste.
Airclues

Not only that, CA, but you also have a choice of two axes to open the containers of flammable liquids plus the allowable box of matches (no lighters, though ... can't be seen to be sensible now) to ignite the spill.

Of course, that wouldn't happen, because you don't have your toothpaste ... can't meet the virgins in heaven with manky teeth.

[prim2]

I hate being subjected to these security measures as much as anyone else, but can you honestly say that it is impossible that one pilot could be coerced into taking a package (containing a prohibited item) through security to simply be collected on the other side? I believe everyone (including police) have to be screened in order to preclude a breach.

[SLF3]

Since everything that goes into the airside airport shops is obviously rigourously screened, no risk of our suicidal SLF or flight crew picking up something dodgy there!

It is not the mindless stupidity of the 'rules' that really gets me: the utter stupidity of so many facets of life in modern Britain makes it unlikely that something as petty as stopping people taking lipstick on aeroplanes will lower my opinion of our institutions still further. The bit that really grates is having no choice but to suffer the inept performance of BAA on a regular basis, and having no choice in the matter. The security screening debacle is nothing more than you would expect from an organisation that is completely dysfunctional.

[chrisbl]

Originally Posted by Mike Jenvey

[Hmmm, let's see, how many ink cartridge's worth of liquid would I need to try & make something nasty?? Should I use red or blue ink?? Tell you what, better be on the cautious side, 500 x 2ml = one litre, so I'd better try & smuggle a few thousand on ...... get real, DfT!!! ]

Ink Cartridge - about the size of a detonator - fits an ink pen nicely - idiot

[derekl]

Fountain pen?

So can I take my fountain pen (with a cartridge) of liquid ink in it?

Can I take my gel pen ?

When will the silliness stop?

[carousel]

Originally Posted by Mike Jenvey

Hmmm, last time I used one (military before anyone gets worried!), had electronics/explosive/wire or other "innards" detectable through screening - chemical/acid ones can't be plastic either...
Likewise, these normally have to be pre-loaded in a detonator with a small amount of primary explosive, such as TNT, hence tubing, wires, etc, also detectable on security screening.

Yes detectable but only if screened by a fully trained wide awake on the ball operator, and not hidden within an item with other electronic components(camera laptop mobile cd player or radio) And by the way the explosives look like fruit or drinks and an x-ray can't tell the difference between nitro and water, add the battery from your favourite electronic gizmo and remember suicide bombers don't need timer's!!

[SmokeAndNoise]

False sense of security?

Today I was forced to check in my "ace-case" in LGW because it's about 1 cm too thick for the new measures. Great. Having already spent 50 min in the check-in queue I was just delighted to spend another 30 min in the "fast baggage check-in" queue. I was told it was for my own safety - which made me feel a lot better... ...Then some 20 minutes of queue to get through security with no shoes on my feet and a nice full body massage.
By the way, I've had the exact same case with me in and out of LHR, LTN, MXP, RMI and CPH after the terrorist scare with no problems what so ever..

I think you need to be of British origin to really understand what's going on in LGW.

For my part it makes me wonder what's to stop me from just stuffing a detonator and 300 grams of c4 up my "behind" and just walse through security with a (perhaps slightly painful looking) smile on my face??

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion about the "security" situation at the moment, but really: How are you going to stop someone who's willing to die for "the cause" in the long run?

[Hobo]

Originally Posted by LIMA OR ALPHA JUNK

Here's a little gem I have cut and pasted for your laughter.............

Of course the said meals were then airside in the engineers's stomachs! Where they were just as a significant threat as had they been in the take away containers.

[TDK mk2]

Originally Posted by TDK mk2

The man you should address your correspondance to is:
David Sterland,
Head of Aviation Security Compliance,
Transport Security and Contigencies Directorate,
Department for(?!) Transport,
5th Floor Zone 13,
Southside,
105 Victoria Street,
London,
SW1E 6DT.
His email address MAY be: [email protected]
I'll let you know if I get a reply to that address...

I did get a reply from the gentleman above. He said:

"I appreciate the issues you raise and at this point can only really say that we are working hard here, along with representatives from industry and the TUs, to see how the measures can be changed in the light of operational experience and the prevailing threat.

I cannot say anything this morning that is going to give an immediate fix or, I'm afraid, give you the answer you are looking for as operational crew. But I can say that a lot of folk are working very hard here to resolve this situation.

Please do continue to give your specfic feedback on the operational impact to your company security people and / or BALPA with whom we are dealing. If they feel they are not in contact with us, then please ask them to email me directly.

Thanks again for making contact."

Can't say fairer than that really and respect to the gentleman for responding to my fairly strongly worded email...

[Alycidon]

TDK Mk2

Noble effort mate, but you've just been fobbed off in a Right Royal fashion.

On a more positive note, apparently the Inbound pax are selling handcream and other toiletries to the cabin crew at very reasonable prices.

One could possibly source some form of explosive this way as well, so that you could hide it in your shoes just to make sure the wreckage catches fire after you've crashed your aircraft into the public building of your choice.

Must go now, just checking my Sony Li Ion battery will ignite my laptop at the correct point of the flight!!

Toodle Pip

[ChristiaanJ]

Just before the scare, I bought a carry-on with a size to the old standadrs.
Who do I sue now?

[Popster]

Hmmm, maybe a change in the offing......??
Not before time. Today at BHD 3 Cabin crew arrived late at aircraft traumatised by the experience of passing through security. Handbags upended then swabbed for explosive traces, contents examined in minute detail with even a calculator dissembled to check for who knows what. Uniformed crew with valid ID's but not from BHD so having to go through central search in front of some of their passengers and treated as if they were a credible threat to operations.
Why do aircrew keep getting singled out for special attention, are they a real risk or the soft option for " random searches " ?

[silverelise]

Originally Posted by ChristiaanJ

Just before the scare, I bought a carry-on with a size to the old standadrs.
Who do I sue now?

Something I lost in the melée regarding liquid explosives - why were the size requirements changed? Why is the smaller size of hand luggage safe but the larger one dangerous all of a sudden?

[eidah]

Originally Posted by silverelise

Something I lost in the melée regarding liquid explosives - why were the size requirements changed? Why is the smaller size of hand luggage safe but the larger one dangerous all of a sudden?

Totally agree surely its whats in the bag which is the problem not the size of it

[Out Of Trim]

Originally Posted by silverelise

Something I lost in the melée regarding liquid explosives - why were the size requirements changed? Why is the smaller size of hand luggage safe but the larger one dangerous all of a sudden?

I gather that the main reason for the size change, Is that the smaller the bag - Then less items will be carried in a less dense bag and make it easier for X-ray operators to spot anything that is forbidden without hand-searching so often. Hence speeding up the security queue.

[ChristiaanJ]

Smaller luggage......
The size difference is not really enough to make a significant difference in security.
But it certainly will make a nice difference in the balance sheets of the travel luggage people.
Curses, can't remember the names.... "Dollseye" or something? And "Marmite" comes to mind ... can't be right.... but I'm sure it ended on "...ite".
A bit of lobbying at the right time and "under the radar" can do wonders, no?
OK, I'll get my coat. I hope I'm still allowed to take that on board.

[offa]

I would assume that EVERYBODY is subjected to the same screening at all entry points (i.e. all customs, baggage handlers, drivers, mechanics, cleaners, etc.) ......... or is it only reserved for dodgy characters like aircrew???

[Itswindyout]

2 small bags = 1 large carry on bag

Or is this too simple...........

only a thought, sorry

Cru

[I Just Drive]

At STN some genious has made a list of acceptable foods to be taken through security. Apparently frozen meals (including curry) are a threat but a sandwich is ok. When is someone at the DfT and/or BAA going to take a step back and put some sense back into aviation security? Go and pick any one of the thousands of line pilots out there and in one go get the opinion of someone directly involved (and at risk) from security issues.

[Roger Ring]

A question to the Ryan Guys at STN - What is the crew food situation for you guys, now that DFT have stopped virtually all food and drink short of Sandwiches (with unlimited mayo!) ?