PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rumours & News (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news-13/)
-   -   The "Crew Security" Thread (merged) (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/273987-crew-security-thread-merged.html)

TFlyguy 2nd May 2007 06:31

Assuming I'm a "naughty" person and wish to take my "dangerous" liquid through security .........

Anyone able to tell me how putting it in a resealable clear plastic bag makes it any safer???????

Superpilot 2nd May 2007 07:19

Well done Girtbar, I suggest a new thread when it's done.

My funniest experience trying to carry a small bottle of liquid past security (as pax) was when I took a small spray bottle containing a hair oil. The muppet looked at it and remarked:

"This is not possible!"

I said: "It's been through before", to which he replied without thinking (cos that's not what they're paid to do):

"This is possible" :ugh:

lotman1000 2nd May 2007 09:23

The following is the text of a letter sent to the UK Times newspaper late yesterday, not by me; perhaps it will be used, perhaps not.



Sir,

There is a new, insidious threat to air travellers’ safety.

For most passengers,security screening is a terrible nuisance, but not a major problem.
The majority only endure it a few times a year. But aircrew are subjected to exactly the same process every time they go to work. Many experience it three or four times in a single day.

According to many confidential incident reports, at many UK airports the security staff, often quite low-grade, are increasingly aggressive, hostile and rude to aircrew, and “delight” in carrying out frequent full body searches, emptying bags, and generally making life difficult.
Aircrew now reach their aircraft seething with contained anger. This is dangerous enough, but the time the crew needs to settle down, and to check the aircraft and paperwork, including essential navigation notices, is also being badly eroded. It is important to understand that these reports analyse the errors that have already happened as a result of all this, and are not simply about the security staff and procedures which they describe and cite as a contributory cause.

It is an absurd regulation that requires an operating crew to be searched aggressively for the weapons needed to take control of an aircraft by foul means, when they are going to take control of it in any case five minutes later because that’s their job. The assertion that “everyone must be treated the same” is as ridiculous in its earnest stupidity as it always is, but is the only explanation advanced so far. There are many ways that the problem could be overcome without reducing aviation security standards, about which I have great experience and knowledge, by one jot.


The Civil Aviation Authority, and the Department of Transport, should not be allowed to continue down the traditional Civil Service route of masterly inaction until an accident happens and people are killed by the aviation security regulations rather than saved by them.

girtbar 2nd May 2007 11:47

Well the petition is still not live, but ill check again later this evening.

swordfling 2nd May 2007 17:58

cavortingcheetah's post made be think - are there any rules on frozen liquids?

I really do not know how those of you who have to work with this nonsense cope. :mad:

snuble 2nd May 2007 19:55

My two cents:

There will be an ease of the liquid rules when they are going through that 6 months review, simply because of the massive drop in tax free liquor sales. The whole plan was to get the sales up, but it failed. People don't know what is allowed and what is not, and don't bother to take the chance of losing their booze.

Flying Spaniard 2nd May 2007 22:29

I heard a story a while ago where some Pakistanis desperate to come to the new motherland jumped the fence at Islamabad to climb up the landing gear bay as a B777 was getting ready for T/O.

If people that are stupid enough to think that they will survive an embarkment like this one, what is stoping Mr/Mrs terrorist to do the same thing but instead plant a magnetic explosive to the fuselage of the aircraft? :ugh:

The best thing of all Mr/Mrs terrorist will not even have to die do get the message accross.

All these morons who invent these rules should be send to the gulags indefinately.

Two's in 3rd May 2007 01:18

Now that you're here - more BAA security nonsense
 
Interesting observation from Sir Michael Bishop (BMI) that there may indeed be a mathematical relationship between the number of security staff on duty at any one time, and the amount of time pax are asked to be at the airport (ie. shopping in a revenue rich environment) to clear the unacceptable security lines. Thank goodness BAA shopping and security staff rostering are completely decoupled activities.

More here;

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle1739175.ece

WHBM 3rd May 2007 08:53


Originally Posted by Two's in (Post 3265840)
Thank goodness BAA shopping and security staff rostering are completely decoupled activities.

Indeed they must be.

Security. Constant staff shortages, the ones who are there are often plonkers, complete jobsworth attitude, never any managers apparent, half or more the security stations usually closed, etc. Problems invariably blamed on the time it takes to get security clearance for staff.

Airside retail. Never any staff shortages, staff always pleasant and polite, no jobsworth attitudes, adequate number of managers on hand, shops never closed due to staff shortage. Seemingly no problem in getting security clearance for staff (which, as they are airside, is the same as for their security counterparts)

Julian Hensey 3rd May 2007 09:04

The Times picks up the story.
 
Well well PPRUNE gets mentioned in The Times no less about this.....

http://travel.timesonline.co.uk/tol/...cle1738277.ece

lotman1000 3rd May 2007 09:44

Security No liquids over a tiny volume, must be in container in stupid plastic bags if under that volume. ( How does that bag make a container safe when it is unsafe it not in the bag?)

Airside retail Any volume of liquids packed in any size of bottle, crated and taken airside via a cursory check by the same bottom-feeders who man the human security channels, no thorough check on contents (any check at all?) and then sold to compulsorily liquid-less passengers, aircrew and ground staff at extortionate prices.

Passengers and crew can then take these large, more or less unchecked containers on to the aircraft, as many as they can stagger on board with. So can all airside ground-staff with a reason for going into the cabin, ie cleaners, dispatchers, station staff etc etc.

All in the name of windfall profits for retailer's and airport owner's shareholders? How cosy, and how ineffective against terrorists.

facsimile 3rd May 2007 09:58

At last a use for all those shampoos and gels we've been nicking from the hotel for years, I would think at least 4 in the flight bag each and every time we go through security would get the message accross. Should always carry them in case of unscheduled night stop!!!!

carousel 3rd May 2007 10:10

Hotel shampoo
 
I am sure that there are security people who would be only to happy delay both you and the rest of the crew while they turn your bag inside out looking for your tricky substance's (providing of course a. they see them b. that they can be bothered to join in the fun):D

timelapse 3rd May 2007 10:13


which, as they are airside, is the same as for their security counterparts
The criminal record check is the same, but there's a CTC check as well by Police / SO15 / MI5 for security staff which takes far longer

ComJam 3rd May 2007 10:16

A friend of mine recently had a small bottle of liquid (shower gel or similar) confiscated by one of these anti-aircrew agents. When he asked why he wasn't allowed t take it through he was told:

"You can't take anything through that might enable you to take over the aircraft."

His reply: "I intend to take over the aircraft, i'm the ***king Captain" :D

The whole thing is beyond a joke now, there seems to be no consistency in the checks i go through every day. Virtually stripping the fillings out of my teeth to ensure i have no metal on my person, doesn't set the machine off one day but does the next! Sometimes it's shoes off, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes the security guy's are overbearing, jumped up, Hitler-style muppets and ............sometimes they're worse. :ugh:

clearfinalsno1 3rd May 2007 10:27

Guys we are not alone in knowing this is absurd. Watch and enjoy these 30 second videos:

Airport security 1
Airport security 2

We need to start writing to our MPs. This is not politics, it's just nonsense.

Moderators, PLEASE can we have our own Airport Security forum on PPruNe.

J-Man 3rd May 2007 11:08

Its gone on for long enough now, time these rules were relaxed.

MaxReheat 3rd May 2007 11:56

First clip - that's the message the DfT are refusing to accept.
Second clip - hilarious and just about sums up the warped thinking behind the current regulations.:D

creamegg 3rd May 2007 12:19

When I went through security at chrismas time at Manchester I had 3 medicine liquids with me which I put in the small plastic bag but was surprised as no-one wanted to check what they were and the doctors letter I had with me wasn't asked for either.

But on the other hand there were people going around saying that we had to declare our lippy and mascara etc otherwise that would be taken of us!

:rolleyes: :ugh: :rolleyes:

Superpilot 3rd May 2007 12:55

Security measures such as these are not designed to withstand scrutiny by sane, professional people (who can rip the logic behind them apart). They exist solely to make it appear to the general foolhardy public that the government is doing something about the threat and is only reacting to a definite (debatable) threat.

Airport Security Game: http://www.shockwave.com/gamelanding...tsecurity.jsp#


All times are GMT. The time now is 15:49.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.