Pax bring a can of petrol on to a BA flight
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: ThiefRow
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some jerry can...
It seems that the item is not a 5 litre jerry can but a small petrol electrical generator with a capacity of less than 3 litres. But then I guess the Italians are exagerating again and it will end up as a box with a BP sticker on it.
Like the guys said above - the security at some European airports is crapo.
Like the guys said above - the security at some European airports is crapo.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last month all check in agents at the Stansted based low cost carrier I work for were informed that we had to ask all passengers whether they were carrying dangerous goods in any of their luggage (checked, hand or on their persons). Any items found are then disposed off at check in - passengers are not to be trusted to put them in a bin themselves before they board.
Previously the signs and posters at check were deemed enough. We were told this new procedure was a CAA requirement now. Perhaps someone from another airline can state if they are having to do the same. So if the CAA requires it, and we, the UK, are part of the JAA, then surely every country in the JAA requires it? But sadly I do not think this is the case. It seems our colleagues in Naples are not as sharp as those in Stockholm now doesnt it? Not that we in Britain can hold our helds above the parapet after the recent incidents at Heathrow.
I hope these gentlemen are now made an example off, along with the staff at Naples. Maybe then the dangerous goods message will start to get through. My vote is for a custodial sentence, no less.
For those of you who would like to be enlightened as to what kind of things I have confiscated from passengers over the last month that are not permitted because they are dangerous goods, well it has ranged from paints to amil nitrate (is that how you spell it). Lying is no good either - if you are caught you will be prosecuted - knowingly taking dangerous goods on an aircraft is a major offence.
Previously the signs and posters at check were deemed enough. We were told this new procedure was a CAA requirement now. Perhaps someone from another airline can state if they are having to do the same. So if the CAA requires it, and we, the UK, are part of the JAA, then surely every country in the JAA requires it? But sadly I do not think this is the case. It seems our colleagues in Naples are not as sharp as those in Stockholm now doesnt it? Not that we in Britain can hold our helds above the parapet after the recent incidents at Heathrow.
I hope these gentlemen are now made an example off, along with the staff at Naples. Maybe then the dangerous goods message will start to get through. My vote is for a custodial sentence, no less.
For those of you who would like to be enlightened as to what kind of things I have confiscated from passengers over the last month that are not permitted because they are dangerous goods, well it has ranged from paints to amil nitrate (is that how you spell it). Lying is no good either - if you are caught you will be prosecuted - knowingly taking dangerous goods on an aircraft is a major offence.
Paxing All Over The World
paxmanwithinfo
[sic]
The petrol leaked from the fuel tank of their generator (probably) because of the pressure difference and vibration might have eased the lid.
Irrespective of quantity, petrol (as most folk know) is highly volatile and vaporises readily. Therefore, it would have been able to circulate freely throughout the air conditioning equipment of the aircraft and permeate the air in all corners of the cabin.
"NOT a serious incident in any way."
I disagree.
Am I being overly sensitive here? The main thing is - it was NOT as serious incident in any way
The petrol leaked from the fuel tank of their generator (probably) because of the pressure difference and vibration might have eased the lid.
Irrespective of quantity, petrol (as most folk know) is highly volatile and vaporises readily. Therefore, it would have been able to circulate freely throughout the air conditioning equipment of the aircraft and permeate the air in all corners of the cabin.
"NOT a serious incident in any way."
I disagree.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Some pax, esp. those who fly infrequently, can be forgiven for their naievete wrt the dangers some items present at altitude, in a confined space.
BUT NOT THE AIRLINE CHECK-IN STAFF, AND THE SECURITY PERSONNEL!!!
THEY deserve the sack!
BUT NOT THE AIRLINE CHECK-IN STAFF, AND THE SECURITY PERSONNEL!!!
THEY deserve the sack!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Abroad
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it would be unfair to make an example of a couple of workers when we know that virtually any other worker or supervisor/boss would have probably done the same in Italy. Why blame the poor old worker who is just doing the same as everybody else?
Perhaps the firing of the Italian Dept of Trandport Minister might encourage others that security is to be taken seriously.......?
Perhaps the firing of the Italian Dept of Trandport Minister might encourage others that security is to be taken seriously.......?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who's stupid?
Why do we constantly blame passengers for their lack of knowledge on aviation matters? To most of them an aeroplane is just another bus, truck, train or boat, which is a remarkable marketing achievement if you think about it. We don't check their IQ or level of technical understanding before taking their ticket money do we? Its up to the industry to enforce safety, and that means skilled groundstaff at all airports.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly, we have the usual bunch of prigs demanding custodial sentances etc. Not all are aware of the nuerotic state of aviation these days and this was in all probability a act of ignorance not malice. Ultimately the problem is with the security staff.
