LHR new security dictat
 

In one word: pathetic

In another word, why?

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!

Quite, but a crew member could, so why don't they ban pilots? :ugh::ugh::ugh:

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?

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

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?
http://static.pprune.org/images/stat...ser_online.gif http://static.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif

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to have by-passed the system in this manner, the responsible crew member ie the Captain, will have his ID permanently withdrawn.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

Yikes. You're going to need new eyeballs and fingerprints! :ugh:

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.

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.

How can you be forced voluntarily?

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.

:ugh:

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

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.

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?

"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.

Why not put all liquids over 100ml in your hold baggage ? End of problem.

..end of whos problem?, are you suggesting a liquid bomb is safe as long as its in the hold?

With that sort of thinking, theres a job waiting for you at LHR security

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.

Punishment
 

The only logical reason I can think of for these new instructions is that Crew are going to be 'punished' for not following the procedures i.e. if you do not put your stuff in the clear plastic bag - and security find it - then it will be confiscated. Pressumably the LHR crews have not been playing ball so must be taught a lesson?

Just a thought!
Bizdev

wizo

Because crew who fly the plane dont check - in with the rest of the punters. They have to take their luggage with them. Also what if their are a/c swaps and your roster changes to operate a different flight and your luggage is on the other plane, can happen has happened.

It could be they are just trying to speed the security process up? On many occasions I have been delayed at security while a long haul flight crew passing through in front of me spends ages transferring items from one bag to another to satisfy the idiotic hold/cabin baggage rules. Maybe they're just trying to encourage(?) crew to have the right sized bottles in the right place BEFORE going through security to save holding up everyone else in the queue while you repack your luggage? I'm not defending the stupid rules - it still pisses me off I have to buy milk and water etc at BAA airside prices - but it could be they are trying to improve the often long and painful security process for the rest of us?

wellingtonbomber
 

I think everyone has forgotten who the enemy are.

Wrong end of the telescope.........

The DfT is managing to do what HItler and the Gestapo couldn't: cow us all into submission for fear of being non-pc.

Try getting the lady in charge of the DfT to speak to any pilot group, including BALPA, and have a sensible conversation.

She refuses.

Airlines are scared to make representations for fear of repercussions. This whole Security thing has gained a momentum all of its own over the years. It is the only growth industry in aviation (as a %age of GDP).

Oh, for an Ivory Tower of my own.

411A
 

I'm sure someone at LHR has got wind of the fact that crews are by-passing the system: they are claiming their bag is going in the hold on the Manifest whilst actually putting it in the cabin (with an oversize bottle of shampoo etc).

The only way to police this is to have Security check the contents of cabin bags at the aeroplane. I would imagine even the DfT can't justify the extra manpower required for the job. SO, the onus has been placed on the Captains with the implicit threat of loss of (ID) livelihood if someone actually succeeds in by-passing the system.

How are the DfT going to police this unless a Security person physically examines the contents of each cabin bag before boarding? It is not the Captain's responsibility to examine the contents of cabin-crew baggage.

In continental Europe, the liquid restrictions are in place for pax, but crew do not need to pull out all their liquids from their cabin and/or hold bags. I feel very sorry for my colleagues that operate out of the UK.

So as someone who lives abroad and goes to the shops in the UK, do I now have to abandon my shopping at the crew check?
Can I put my suitcase through the terminal check-in along with the pax? :ugh:

Wizo
"Why not put all liquids over 100ml in your hold baggage ? End of problem."


Lone_Ranger
"..end of whos problem?, are you suggesting a liquid bomb is safe as long as its in the hold?

With that sort of thinking, theres a job waiting for you at LHR security"


This response has made me giddy on so many levels.

I really can't see what people are moaning about.

You have to put your liquid items in a bag, and place them in a tray for scanning, just the same as the passengers.

It's taken longer to moan about it, than to comply.

As to the use of the phrase "voluntarily surrender them", that's quite simple as well, either you volunteer to surrender them, or you are denied access through security, and can't work.

Where's the fire? Why is this suddenly "news"? I thought, obviously incorrectly, that those of us operating out of LHR (certainly those of us working through T5 and before that Compass Centre ;))had been subject to this ******, including confiscation, for a few years now.

It has caused a lot of grief amongst the Short Haul Community because for lots of good reasons they generally don't check-in baggage.. and those of us Long Haul types who do use a suitcase stick the bigger stuff inside that ( e.g. Greecian 2000, monster tubes of Toothpaste and the odd bottle of Bolly for the room party :cool:) without any probs ( apart from the risk of breaking the Bolly of course :{ :{ ).

Ahhhh HA!!

I can still buy my 1 litre bottle of overproof, flamable booze in Duty Free and take it on board..........that would make a great old fire if I poured it all over something (or someone) and lit it!!!:D:D :mad:

I have to couch this in very vague terms or it will be deleted, again.
I think I want to blow up some innocent bystanders in an aviation environment.
I know, I will take my bomb with me to the airport and get in the crowded queue for security.
Need I say more?
For some reason this post is deemed unsuitable for pprune and will be deleted asap.
Like, I am the first and only person to think of this?
Sheep protected by wolves springs to mind.
Idiocy follows close behind the wolf.

In another word, theft. BAA aren't immune from the criminal law.

wiggy
 

Can someone tell me why the Captain (short or long-haul) should have his ID - and livelihood - removed by Security because a cabin-crew member circumvents the system and manages to smuggle a 150 ml bottle of shampoo into the cabin?

If this is true (and it well might be), the LHR crews have only themselves to blame...IE: the few that are 'clever' have spoiled it for the rest.

Quite typical.:rolleyes:

Is cabin crew want ot bring the a/c down, the just need to put a few oxygen bottles to cook and it's done. So again stupid measures being taken.

Happily I don't operate to/from LHR but the crews have all my sympathies.

The lunatics are definitely running the asylum in Britain now (notice the lack of the word Great).

As I predicted the 12 that were recently arrested in the Manchester area under the guise of "terrorists" have now been released without charge.

Until we have a revolution in the UK I fear things will only get worse - we only have ourselves to blame.

411A
 

Well, yes.

BUT why should you lose your driving licence because your 18-year old daughter is convicted for drink-driving?

The only way Security could enforce this rule is by having spot-checks on cabin baggage in the aircraft: labour intensive and expensive ie almost unworkable. I expect the logic (if there is any) is that the Captain will do their job for them.

Mr 411A ,would you be happy to lose your livelihood because a young, cabin-crew member decides to smuggle that special 150ml bottle of expensive shampoo in his/her cabin bag?

I'm not sure that the Captain has any legal right to search the bags of his cabin crew. If they refuse, is he obliged to offload them and then suffer the inevitable delays while finding a replacement!
Why not enter the airport by the freight side, there the crews don't even have to get out of the bus! The sucurity staff are obviously much better equipped there because they can scan all bags etc whilst they stay on the bus as well! Why is it considered Ok for one set of crew and not another? They are either not following the correct DoT regulations or are interpreting them in a much more sensible way!