Aviation Security - General Thread

[Aviador]

Jet2 were one of the first majors to pull out of Sharm when things kicked off there. It's old hat but at the time a prominant member of Jet2 said they didn't want to overexpose the airline to vulnerable areas. They said that other operators will have been hit hard with repatriation costs.

I would imagine it's easier for an airline like Ryanair to operate on routes such as Marroco as they wouldn't have the added costs of accommodation refunds to make should things turn sour.

 

[Philbky]

EGCC, you raise an interesting point regarding risk and (the potential for) post incident litigation. We live in a strange world in which it seems atrocities occur almost daily, yet the average man in the street expects that it won't happen to him. In an increaingly dangerous world, it seems people blithely expect others to do risk assessment and ensure their safety for them and then head straight to the courts if the worst happens.

To accept that a venue is safe, just because it is not only possible to travel there, but a package is on offer, is naive. There is an abundance of information on the risks of every destination, from news stories to Foreign Office information, for everyone to do their own research on which to make a judgement before travelling.

Package tours are not a protective bubble. In the case of Tunisia, there was enough evidence out there for people to make a judgement but I'd guess 90℅ plus of the people in that resort hadn't given it a second thought even though, only three months before, hostages had been taken, 22 people died and 50 were injured in the attack on the museum in Tunis. One isolated attack doesn't necessarily turn somewhere into a no go destination. If it did, the world would come to a shuddering halt and the terrorist would have won, but it does raise the need for individuals and companies alike to reassess the risk and the precautions to be taken.

The unfortunate truth is that safe is a relative term. Westminster Bridge was not considered a target any more than anywhere else in London. The Lindt Cafe in Sydney was not thought to be unsafe. I have twice had to clear large venues when events I have organised and run have received bomb threats, yet neither event was considered a target in the accepted meaning of the perceived threat at the time.

If an organiser of a package tour or event has assessed the risks, taken reasonable care and followed government advice on risk and security, they should have no case to answer. It should be that it is down to the individual to make a decision based on information that is in the public domain before travelling.

I travel extensively around the world. There are places I wouldn't set foot in, others where I weigh the risk but, wherever I am, I cannot protect myself 100% from the world. Litigation and the blame culture has become the norm, fueled by ambulance chasing lawyers, heightened by a sensationalist media eager to look for someone to blame as well as the perpetrators, because they see an opportunity for profit.

 

[airforced]

If an organiser of a package tour or event has assessed the risks, taken reasonable care and followed government advice on risk and security, they should have no case to answer. It should be that it is down to the individual to make a decision based on information that is in the public domain before travelling.

I travel extensively around the world. There are places I wouldn't set foot in, others where I weigh the risk but, wherever I am, I cannot protect myself 100% from the world. Litigation and the blame culture has become the norm, fueled by ambulance chasing lawyers, heightened by a sensationalist media eager to look for someone to blame as well as the perpetrators, because they see an opportunity for profit.

I would agree wholeheartedly with those comments.

This subject, in general, has been discussed before and in the not too distant past if I remember correctly. The stimulus for it was the fact that Jet2 pulled it's routes to North Africa quite early on and was therefore not exposed in the way TUI was when the Tunisian beach/hotel murders took place.

Again from memory, I think the majority view on that thread was, despite of rather than because of, any FCO advice and tour operator blandishments, every individual is responsible for their own safety and it is they who need to make a decision on where they travel to and most certainly should not, with the benefit of hindsight, start blaming others for their predicament should they end up in trouble or at the wrong end of a terrorist incident.

Having lived and worked, in quieter times I might add, in an area which is now an iffy area for Westerners I have great sympathy for anyone who gets caught up in the sort of sickening events we seem today to almost take for granted as part of everyday life, I now am possibly more cautious of travelling to places I perceive as not being particularly healthy for my well being. I would certainly not go back there today along with many other places tour operators would like to sell me a holiday to.

It is impossible however to impart this natural caution to the general populace who are only, when making their holiday plans, thinking of sunshine and relaxation et al. This why the earlier posts in this thread, with the most unfortunate consequences experienced, could prove a beneficial read for the population at large as it might allow them to consider their holiday plans a little more carefully before blithely jetting off to some foreign destination.

A good discussion enlivens a forum as long as it remains civil or ends up being so which is where I think we are on this subject now. Sorry to have gone on a bit. I'll pipe down now.

 

[Aviador]

U.S. likely to expand airline laptop ban to Europe: government officials
The Trump administration is likely to expand a ban on laptops on commercial aircraft to include some European countries, but is reviewing how to ensure lithium batteries stored in luggage holds do not explode in midair, officials briefed on the matter said on Wednesday.

Any expansion of the ban could impact U.S. carriers such as United Airlines (UAL.N), Delta Air Lines Inc (DAL.N) and American Airlines Group (AAL.O). Six U.S. and European officials said they expect the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to make an announcement but declined to say when.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-airlines-electronics-ban-idUSKBN1862QS​

I don't see the point in this type of measure unless they ban all larger electrical items such as Sky and Virgin Media boxes. Even then there are an endless number of smaller electrical items that could become a threat if manipulated.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I 'liked' your comment, Aviador, not the possible action of the US authorities.

 

[Aviador]

I 'liked' your comment, Aviador, not the possible action of the US authorities.

I'm wondering if we should have an acknowledge tab!

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I suppose you could acknowledge a post without actually agreeing with it or even liking it. To an extent that applies to the 'like' button. I sometimes 'like' a post because I can see the point being made without necessarily concurring with it.

 

[lbaspotter]

As of 16:00hrs on Wednesday, July 26th 2017 @ The UK Foreign Office has just announced that its lifting all its restrictions on UK holiday makers travelling to Tunisia.

 

[Aviador]

The United States TSA has announced it is restricting the carriage of powdered substances. This includes items such as Talcum Power and baby milk. The Australian government has said it is to follow suit from the 30th of June. It is likely the EU nations (including the UK) will also follow suit.

The Australian restrictions:

The Australian government has made a distinction between organic and inorganic powders, with these categories being subject to different regulations. Inorganic powders, which include talcum powders, foot powders, powdered detergent, some cleaning products and sand, must not exceed 350ml (volume) or 350g (weight). The quantity will be calculated on the total container volume, so passengers cannot tip powders out to fall under the 350ml threshold.

Organic powders, such as powdered baby formula, most cosmetics, coffee and protein powders are not subject to volume restrictions, but must still be presented at airport security.

 

[Aviador]

The BBC is reporting on three small explosive devices which have been found at London Heathrow and London City airports as well as Waterloo Station. Irish police are said to be assisting London Metropolitan Police with their investigation.

 

[Aviador]

The UK government has today raised the UK threat level to Substantial meaning a terrorist attack is highly likely.

 

[Aviador]

According to the Daily Mail, many UK airports are behind on installation of new scanners enabling them to do away with the 100ml liquid restrictions. The Department for Transport was insisting all airports must deploy the new technology by June.

Travellers could face a summer of airport chaos as some of London's airports are set to miss a deadline to install a new security scanner that will put an end to the 100ml carry on rule.​

​

Airport operators have until June to put in new, advanced CT scanners at their security checkpoints, but Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports, as well as Manchester Airport, are behind schedule on the installation, it has emerged. ​

Source: Daily Mail​

 

[Kevin Farnell]

BBC report that Heathrow, Gatwick and Manchester airports are expected to miss the 1 June roll out date for new security scanners and could take another year to implement the changes.

Airports could take extra year to lift liquids ban

Major airports will not have new scanners at all security lanes by the summer, the BBC understands.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[mullion]

Many of Manchesters new scanners are working but T1 is the problem mainly because it is due to close in next year or so

 

[nwoody2001]

I can confirm as of this weekend no new scanners have yet been installed in MAN T3

 

[mullion]

Many of Manchesters new scanners are working but T1 is the problem mainly because it is due to close in next year or so

I think T 3 is a problem also as they weigh over 2 tons each

 

[Aviador]

Ministers have ordered an astonishing emergency U-turn on airport security following concerns about new equipment that allows passengers to keep liquids in their hand luggage.

Airports with the new scanners have been ordered to reimpose old rules from midnight on Saturday, meaning that travellers will be limited to carrying 100ml containers.

Independent

#UKAirportSecurityRules #BHXsecurity

 

[Aviador]

While security has never been compromised, a number of airports using the new scanners have experienced long queues due to a higher-than-expected rejection rate, as security officers carry out hand searches. Sources have told The Independent that harmless liquids such as sunscreen have been misidentified as high threat subtances.

#UKAirportSecurityRules