Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

LHR new security dictat

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

LHR new security dictat

Old 21st Apr 2009, 19:42
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Western Europe
Posts: 182
LHR new security dictat

This is interesting. The powers that be in BAA LHR have decided that it you do not remove all you liquids/gels in the 100ml containers, plastic bag etc you will be forced to 'voluntarily abandon' them. It seems the BAA are convicting crew of an offence and imposing a penalty. I have great suspicions that this may be illegal. Apart from the idiocy of taking toothpaste away from people who fly large jets (I know we've been there before) isn't it just extraordinary how that BAA seem determined to go after crew?


"In November 2006, European Union Member States introduced regulations to restrict the
volume of liquids that may be taken airside by passengers and staff, including aircrew.
1.2. So that the screening of all staff including aircrew at control posts is consistent with passenger
screening the re-packing of liquid items into hold baggage after screening (i.e. once airside)
will no longer be permitted.
2. This notice tells you that:
2.1.
From 00.01 on the 1stMay 2009 airline crew will NO longer be allowed to repack liquid items
that are either over 100ml or not presented in the regulation one litre clear resealable bag into
their hold baggage after passing through control post screening points.

3. Advice for airline crew - Before arriving at a security control post
3.1.
To prevent the unnecessary loss of liquid items at the search area crew should ensure
they have followed these instructions before entering the control post ;
3.1.1.
Each liquid item must be in a container of 100ml or less and this, in turn, must fit
comfortably into a resealable clear plastic one litre bag. (excluding essential/
prescription medication)
3.1.2. Any liquid item that does not fit into the one litre bag or is above the maximum 100ml
should already be packed in hold baggage.
3.1.3. Crew found to be carrying containers in their cabin baggage, that do not have their size
clearly marked but are thought to be significantly larger than 100ml, will have to
voluntarily abandon the relevant item(s) for disposal at the search area.
3.1.4. The liquids bag must be presented separately and outside of the cabin bag
3.1.5. The liquids bag will be examined by X-ray. It can be placed into the same tray as hand
baggage, a laptop, personal belongings or clothing. However, the view of the liquids
bag must not be obscured by placing it under or on top of these items.
3.1.6. Crew should be aware that bags containing liquids will be subjected to search if
rejected by any member of the screening staff or as part of the random search
requirement.
3.2. Any loose liquid items (except essential medication) not in the single one litre bag, regardless
of size, must be voluntarily abandoned if found in the cabin baggage during or after X-ray

screening."
Consol is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2009, 19:45
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 549
In one word: pathetic
eagle21 is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2009, 19:50
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 141
In another word, why?
windytoo is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2009, 20:09
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Between EGAA, EGAC & the wilds of England
Age: 35
Posts: 99
They can only implement this if the crew allow it to happen. Let a few flights get delay \ canx because of it & see how quickly they abandon the idea.

I, like the OP, suspect this is not legal as the legal remit of BAAs "security" droids to is prevent anything entering an aircraft which would endanger its safety. Crew toothpaste isn't going to bring the aircraft out of the sky!
ground_star is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2009, 20:14
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Under the clouds now
Age: 82
Posts: 2,175
Crew toothpaste isn't going to bring the aircraft out of the sky!
Quite, but a crew member could, so why don't they ban pilots?
brakedwell is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2009, 20:22
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 527
Any liquid item that does not fit into the one litre bag or is above the maximum 100ml
should already be packed in hold baggage.
Do LHL crews at LHR pass VP points with both their hold and hand/cabin baggage? If so, what's to stop you from removing liquids from your hold luggage and putting it in your cabin baggage once airside?
TotalBeginner is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2009, 20:34
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Floating around the planet
Posts: 383
The time will come when they will forbid airplanes to fly with control column and sidesticks.

And also the axe !!!

Reason ??Pathetic Safety ,done by fat pathetic burocrats
A-3TWENTY is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2009, 20:34
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: essex
Posts: 177
TotalBeginner

Do LHL crews at LHR pass VP points with both their hold and hand/cabin baggage? If so, what's to stop you from removing liquids from your hold luggage and putting it in your cabin baggage once airside?


A very good point. This is something that may have been happening in our airline at LHR. The DfT response?:

if a cabin crew member is found to have by-passed the system in this manner, the responsible crew member ie the Captain, will have his ID permanently withdrawn.

Reasonable? Sensible? Legal? Should airline protest (it has simply rolled over)?

Discuss
sweetie76 is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2009, 20:50
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 191
if a cabin crew member is found to have by-passed the system in this manner, the responsible crew member ie the Captain, will have his ID permanently withdrawn.
Yikes. You're going to need new eyeballs and fingerprints!
BigHitDH is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2009, 20:55
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Where its at
Posts: 297
More logic for going through security:

Firearms in the cabin are banned.
Liquids over 100mls are banned.

If I pack a firearm and it gets detected, it will be confiscated and I will not be allowed through.

If I pack a liquid over 100mls and it gets detected, it will be confiscated and I will be allowed through.

As the liquid is as forbidden as the firearm, and I have packed either with intent to carry on board, I don't see why in either case I shouldn't be prevented from passing through.

Unless of course, as things are it's tacitly understood that I mean no harm with my liquid.

Therefore if I mean no harm, why can I not take it on board?

The answer is of course that at 5.73 an hour logic doesn't come into it and that the majority of this facade is to be seen to be doing something.
Caudillo is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2009, 21:08
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 6,425
Although the security staff you come into contact with may be paid 5.73 an hour, there is a whole army of rather better paid bureaucracy behind them who need to justify their continued existence rather than let things stay as they are (ie be seen to be doing something all the time).

There are New Security Procedure Devisers, who are obviously out of a job if they don't devise new procedures, and there are New Security Procedure Devising Section Leaders and New Security Procedure Devising Managers in a structure above them. There are New Security Procedure Secretaries to type it all up, QA people, lawyers (inevitably), and everyone up the tree to the civil servants in Whitehall who play a part in pushing the paper round, on their own way to their index-linked gold-plated pensions, and maybe an OBE if they keep their noses clean.

Any connection between this and real, useful security controls is, of course, completely coincidental. And, of course, they expect us all to pay for it.
WHBM is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2009, 22:51
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,481
Once again the lunatics are running the asylum.
captjns is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2009, 23:17
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: LATLONG
Posts: 169
you will be forced to 'voluntarily abandon' them
How can you be forced voluntarily?
ItsAjob is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2009, 23:28
  #14 (permalink)  
Location, Location, Location
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If it moves, watch it like a hawk: If it doesn't, hit it with a hammer until it does...
Age: 57
Posts: 142
You can't...

Security and Management bollox-speak.

Maybe one day they'll get brought to book on this and the security costs will reduce; until then it's a gravy-train that we all pay for either financially or in terms of (in)convenience and delay.

mocoman is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2009, 23:48
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK/OZ
Posts: 1,717
Monitor the toilets?

Last year both ITN and the BBC broadcast graphic experiments where 500ml of liquid explosive puts a sizable hole in the fuselage. No doubt the bad guys were watching.

Is the limit of 100ml is a good idea?

1 x 100ml mouthwash
1 x 100ml shampoo
1 x 100ml conditioner
1 x 100ml aftershave
1 x 100ml deodorant

adds up to 1 x 500ml device.

So the current 100ml limit, although being a slight deterrent, none the less is, in reality, utterly useless in preventing a 500ml liquid explosive device being mixed on board.

If the total volume of liquid per passenger were to be limited to say 200ml this can be easily circumvented by accomplices meeting airside and passing their quota to an individual before he boards his flight.

You won't need more than one suicide terrorist to board the flight, unless gate checks are made to prevent 500ml of liquid on board, but I don't see this happening due to the high number of passengers that bring their own drinking water and it would adversely affect airside shopping sales.

The liquid bomb threat should be countered in other ways.

Given that chemicals have to be carefully mixed to create the most potent bomb it is the aircraft toilets that need to be monitored rather than over 100 million passengers a year that fly from UK airports.


Liquid Bombs Tested In Plane Fuselage. - AOL Video

ABC News

Liquid Bomb Plot On Aircraft

Mickjoebill
mickjoebill is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2009, 03:15
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Various
Posts: 25
I have posted my views on this thread earlier. Its not going to change, to much money involved.

Simple solution, if LHR appears on your roster, go sick.....its not worth the hassle.
whyisthat is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2009, 04:39
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nepal
Posts: 20
Perhaps this has something to do with the recent bomb threat incident at Heathrow & the fact that a cabin crew member was detained. Crew are probably now considered as much of a threat as anyone else (if they weren't already) & perhaps even more so, given their regular access to aircraft.

The thing that annoys me most is that the procedures are not even standardised across all the airports in the UK, let alone all the airports in the world. Makes a bit of a mockery of the whole thing, doesn't it?
takingover is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2009, 05:02
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kelowna Wine Country
Posts: 429
"but are thought to be significantly larger than 100ml, will have to
voluntarily abandon the relevant item(s) for disposal at the search area."

Right out of 1984. It just gets worse.
ChrisVJ is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2009, 06:08
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Down South
Posts: 54
Why not put all liquids over 100ml in your hold baggage ? End of problem.
wizo is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2009, 07:00
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 331
Isn't this the country that recently announced that liquid restrictions are to be LIFTED by the end of the year, with the advent of new machines? What the.......?

I can see it now: by the end of the year all passengers will be allowed take any liquids through in hand luggage. However, the idiots probably won't bother to introduce the new machine to the crew check-points ($$$,you see), so crew will still be subject to these insane restrictions.
Ron & Edna Johns is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.