LHR new security dictat
Thread Starter
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.
"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.
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
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."
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Between EGAA, EGAC & the wilds of England
Age: 39
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
should already be packed in hold baggage.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Floating around the planet
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
And also the axe !!!
Reason ??Pathetic Safety ,done by fat pathetic burocrats
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: essex
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Where its at
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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: 60
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Various
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Simple solution, if LHR appears on your roster, go sick.....its not worth the hassle.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nepal
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
"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.
voluntarily abandon the relevant item(s) for disposal at the search area."
Right out of 1984. It just gets worse.
