LHR new security dictat
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411a
And I am another pax who does just that. It also eliminates UK transit on any airline with O&D there, including AA, UA, CO and DL.
I was once EC Silver on BA and am Lifetime Platinum on AA. But it has been over four years since I flew BA and over three since I was in transit through LHR on AA. I use the airports on the continent.
I dont care if it is the Exchequer (the outrageous taxes), the DoT (the senseless delays at security), the BAA (the baggage losses and silly airport rules), BA (lack of staff) the UK airport experience is something I avoid at all costs!
The quite obvious answer for pax that can (due to their particular travel arrangements) avoid travel from/to/through any UK airport .... decline to do so, on a regular basis...as quite frankly the UK security staff have become so obtuse, I simply will not put up with it....
This also positively eliminates any travel on any UK airline...
This also positively eliminates any travel on any UK airline...
I was once EC Silver on BA and am Lifetime Platinum on AA. But it has been over four years since I flew BA and over three since I was in transit through LHR on AA. I use the airports on the continent.
I dont care if it is the Exchequer (the outrageous taxes), the DoT (the senseless delays at security), the BAA (the baggage losses and silly airport rules), BA (lack of staff) the UK airport experience is something I avoid at all costs!
As someone has already posted , SOMEONE came up with these ridiculous ideas so who the hell was it, a UK numpty or an EU gravy train wallah? Might be nice to write to them.
I wonder if they realise,the 100ml restriction doesnt apply to crew coming into the UK !
I wonder if they realise,the 100ml restriction doesnt apply to crew coming into the UK !
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if they realise,the 100ml restriction doesnt apply to crew coming into the UK !
If the flight doesn't arrive because some numpty has successfully used the lax security procedure to take on board liquid explosives in a container of more than 100ml then the above fact is somewhat irrelevant.
Incidentally, the deemed threat is from the container being greater than 100ml which is a joke as you can easily buy bottles of water ( and a host of bottles and containers) airside. It would only take a dozen or so mavericks acting together to accumulate 1lt of active chemical. Maybe this is the flaw in the system?
The process of screening liquids of up to 100ml is two fold. One the quantity in itself does not present a huge threat and puts the pax under 'stress' which is monitored and observed by staff. If there were multiple attempts to smuggele chemicals airside this would in all likliehood be thwarted in this way.
Seems to have worked so far - thankfully.
The 100ml does apply to inbound freighter crews to LHR who have to throw their water away (the one they have flown half way round the world with) at security to be able to hand a customs dec in at Queens. I then have to buy another one for my bus ride home
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emigrate !!!
UK airport security ? .. loathsome, a national embarrassment, one has to question who's side are they actually on given that one of the objects of terrorism is generally held to be to disrupt and spread disquiet.
Nice one BAA
I am doubly to be an infrequent visitor to the septic isle
TR
Nice one BAA
I am doubly to be an infrequent visitor to the septic isle
TR
In NCE the other day...I'd bought a Cassoulet in a jar. I reckoned the French security would probably see sense about *that* 500 or so ml of mixed liquids and solids. And they did. France is a civilised country. Had it been outbound I suspect they'd have kept it for din-dins...except at LTN where they'd be too busy with their young.
)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 56
Posts: 798
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DISCLAIMER: THIS POST IN NO WAY ENDORSES THE STUPID RULES DISCUSSED IN THIS THREAD. IT IS MERELY "THINKING OUT LOUD" AND A THEORY REGARDING WHAT COULD HAPPEN, EVEN WITH THESE DUMBASS RESTRICTIONS.
Would you need to actually "blow up" the plane? Here's a thought for you, you don't. All you need is a "bang" on a plane nowadays and then everyone and everything goes nipples skywards. Set off a small one in the toilets or, even better, a small one that hurts a fellow pax and your terrorist cell has all the publicity they need as well as causing the chaos they desire. Restrictions get worse, security gets worse, yada yada, because of the ensuing publicity.
Sobering thought, isn't it. You have several planes with one "Jihadi" brainwashed/willing to do such a thing and no restriction on solids or liquids will stop the chaos they want happening.
How big plane do you blow up with 100ml nitroglycerin
(better security not shake it to much
)
(better security not shake it to much
)
Sobering thought, isn't it. You have several planes with one "Jihadi" brainwashed/willing to do such a thing and no restriction on solids or liquids will stop the chaos they want happening.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nitroglycerin is not that easy to make nor acquire and thankfully the machines at Airports are very sensitive to any Nitrites present in baggage. This include nitrogycerin tabletsfor heart conditions. I have even heard tales of folk who have been picked up because some adhesive products give a similar trace to Nitro.
I understand that 100ml of Nitro could easily cause a significant damage on an airliner at altitude. The effect of a pressurised hull and with low outside airpressure would 'magnify' the effect of any blast. Any breach in the hull structure will presnt a risk to life.
I understand that 100ml of Nitro could easily cause a significant damage on an airliner at altitude. The effect of a pressurised hull and with low outside airpressure would 'magnify' the effect of any blast. Any breach in the hull structure will presnt a risk to life.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 56
Posts: 798
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But would you need nitro? What about something that reacts, something like an acid/alkali mix, to release smoke and nasty fumes? All the bad guys would need to say is "Next time it will go BOOM" and there you have the desired effect. (You do not want to know some of the things I have found online regarding liquids. For obvious reasons I ain't posting them here)
Makes a mockery of the "100ml" rule, when you think about it. After all, the IRA crippled a large chunk of London several years ago just by saying "There's a bomb on a District Line train" (I was caught up in it, every train was emptied ASAP at stations and the whole lot checked out. Was a hoax, of course, but it had the desired effect). Why bother making the "big bang" when you can cause enough chaos with the threat of it? There is an obvious follow on to that too.........
Makes a mockery of the "100ml" rule, when you think about it. After all, the IRA crippled a large chunk of London several years ago just by saying "There's a bomb on a District Line train" (I was caught up in it, every train was emptied ASAP at stations and the whole lot checked out. Was a hoax, of course, but it had the desired effect). Why bother making the "big bang" when you can cause enough chaos with the threat of it? There is an obvious follow on to that too.........
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dark side of the force
Age: 55
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The liquids regulation is a thing of the past, just an excuse to fuk up everybody, more and more people have moved to trains (I do) because itīs much better to ride on them, Itīs been ages since I donīt fly in Spain from one city to another but I assure you that if this would no be my profession I would never take a plane again.
Donīt you think that politics all around europe and USA are just doing politics and not takeing care of the real people needs?
Donīt you think that politics all around europe and USA are just doing politics and not takeing care of the real people needs?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scandinavia
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Munnyspinner wrote:
Would 5 times, say, 50 ml of Nitro be any different...well within the regulations...
Question: if I buy a bottle of water after security, who has checked that these bottles of water are safe?
fc101
I understand that 100ml of Nitro could easily cause a significant damage on an airliner at altitude. The effect of a pressurised hull and with low outside airpressure would 'magnify' the effect of any blast. Any breach in the hull structure will presnt a risk to life.
Question: if I buy a bottle of water after security, who has checked that these bottles of water are safe?
fc101
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question: if I buy a bottle of water after security, who has checked that these bottles of water are safe?
The fact that they could be used as a vessel to contain a greater volume of liquid remains a potential threat - but the security teams obviuolsy assume that they will intercept and dangerous chemicals under the 100ml rule which would prevent multiple terrorsits amalgamating their chemical airside.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If some contained chemical then the staff would have to be complicit in arranging for these to find their way into the right( wrong) hands.
Munnyspinner
Are they "screened" ?
Is it impossible for someone acting in collusion to circumvent?
I'd also add .. what do you think happens with inflight catering prepared outside the security zone and then delivered airside.......
I see this stuff move airside every day
What on earth do you mean? Safe - the bottle or the water? They are security screened and come form the retailers/suppliers. If they didn't contain water it would become apparent when the first person who bought one took a drink. If some contained chemical then the staff would have to be complicit in arranging for these to find their way into the right( wrong) hands.
The fact that they could be used as a vessel to contain a greater volume of liquid remains a potential threat - but the security teams obviuolsy assume that they will intercept and dangerous chemicals under the 100ml rule which would prevent multiple terrorsits amalgamating their chemical airside.
The fact that they could be used as a vessel to contain a greater volume of liquid remains a potential threat - but the security teams obviuolsy assume that they will intercept and dangerous chemicals under the 100ml rule which would prevent multiple terrorsits amalgamating their chemical airside.
Are they "screened" ?
Is it impossible for someone acting in collusion to circumvent?
I'd also add .. what do you think happens with inflight catering prepared outside the security zone and then delivered airside.......
I see this stuff move airside every day
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: London
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read these threads everyday if I can and sometimes I do wonder. Many on here tell us that they are professionals, mostly pilots, working in the aviation industry. Given that not just anyone can take the controls of a commercial aircraft - a large amount of intelligence is required, exams, experience etc. I do tend, rightly or wrongly, to credit you all with some common sense and logic. Most if not all will have completed at least one degree which should expand your mind and teach you to research a subject sufficiently enough to draw a balanced conclusion, a skill you carry with you for life and apply in many everyday situations.So, how can so many get it all so wrong? This site appears to be somewhere that many vent their spleen rather than add value to some seriously good threads.Just above, Carnage Matey refers to the lyrical terroist working airside. Not true and not hard to establish that fact.Several on here have said the 'liquids threat' is a thing of the past and should be dropped - that is unbelievable. I wonder what the reaction would be if, god forbid, a liquid device brought your aircraft down. How bad would the 'Government Wallahs' be then?Everything that goes 'airside' is screened from passengers to the stock in duty free shops to the catering on board. All staff, crews and vehicles are also screened - even the people that make the rules that appear to upset so many of you are screened - i didn't have to research very long to find that out.My point is that a little research - asking the right people, web-sites etc will answer most of the question that seem to have some on here on the verge of a stroke! How disappointing that some of the profession I have (and continue to) admired most of my life display so much ignorance on a subject that they should know better than many.
elgnin
" So how can so many get it all so wrong"
Yes, most of us here are professionals, many with degrees, and we have been trained in critical thought but unlike you we don't rely on web-sites for our primary source of information... is it just possible you are the one who is getting it "all so wrong"?
Most of us go through airport screening everytime we come to work. Yes, we are aware of what goes on, and yes, we are entitled to "vent our spleens" when we see, for example, gallons of liquids being rolled through into airside for commercial reasons whilst security are dismantling our briefcases.
You said .." All staff, crews and vehicles are also screened"..
Do yourself a favour, rather than relying on web-sites or talking to people down the pub, take a look at the way, say, vehicles in particular are screened at most UK airports - then I suggest you'd realise what a charade this all is.
Oh yes, and do yourself another favour - if you want to join a reasoned debate delete the last sentence of your posting, the one implying that the professionals here are ignorant...it makes you sound arrogant and badly informed.
Yes, most of us here are professionals, many with degrees, and we have been trained in critical thought but unlike you we don't rely on web-sites for our primary source of information... is it just possible you are the one who is getting it "all so wrong"?
Most of us go through airport screening everytime we come to work. Yes, we are aware of what goes on, and yes, we are entitled to "vent our spleens" when we see, for example, gallons of liquids being rolled through into airside for commercial reasons whilst security are dismantling our briefcases.
You said .." All staff, crews and vehicles are also screened"..
Do yourself a favour, rather than relying on web-sites or talking to people down the pub, take a look at the way, say, vehicles in particular are screened at most UK airports - then I suggest you'd realise what a charade this all is.
Oh yes, and do yourself another favour - if you want to join a reasoned debate delete the last sentence of your posting, the one implying that the professionals here are ignorant...it makes you sound arrogant and badly informed.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Essex
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep the French are so civilised Richard Reid walked onto the aircraft. I suppose the odd terrorist getting on now and again is immaterial when it comes to keeping the majority of people happy. Unless that is you happen to be on the same flight.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: England
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You lot make me laugh moaning about security which I agree is way over the top.
But moaning about here will make no difference ASR it and your company safety department will raise an MOR if they are professional.
The CAA need historical data to go to the DofT to prove there is a flight safety hazard with some aspects of security. If we as professionals don't take the 5 minutes to submit an ASR then we only have ourselves to blame.
So stop wasting your time here and fill out those ASR's it is the only way we have any chance of stopping this farce.
But moaning about here will make no difference ASR it and your company safety department will raise an MOR if they are professional.
The CAA need historical data to go to the DofT to prove there is a flight safety hazard with some aspects of security. If we as professionals don't take the 5 minutes to submit an ASR then we only have ourselves to blame.
So stop wasting your time here and fill out those ASR's it is the only way we have any chance of stopping this farce.