Airport Security

Redpunto

Hiya, havent flown in a few years so havent been through with all the security checks and looking for some info, does all make-up have to go into those plastic bags, what about painkillers?? Will I have to empty out the kids beaker before going through?? Thanks a mill:)

cp251

Don't know, I have to admit but the last time I went through Galway Airport I had to take off my shoes and belt and empty my pockets etc. Which is hilarious because in fact I was the pilot and only person on board. Well you never know I might hijack myself.:D

BobTheBeat

Check out this.

Pretty much sums up all the requirements. They do tend to enforce them rigidly so to avoid unnecessary stress it would be best to arrive prepare, even moreso if you have kids with you. Enjoy the trip anyways!

bonjo1983

You are only allowed carry liquids paste gels that are 100mls and under, you will be required to put them in a clear plastic bag (including make-up) it will save your hand baggage being hand searched.

cp251 I'd imagine the reason for you tkaing off your belt and shoes is in Galway i persume you go land side you have to pass through departures so the reason for pilots going through the same screening is to make sure ther's is nothing you could leave in there for passengers i.e a knife.

cp251

In theory of course that's true. But in truth I would have found it a lot easier to smuggle my arsenal in on my aeroplane. Which I would have loaded up another airfield which has no security. My 'passengers' would then storm out of the aircraft and take over, one snowy Christmas eve. Hoping that John McClain is still stuck in JFK.:D

Everyone knows airport security is mostly for show. It is nearly always easily bypassed. There was another interesting aspect of the check which I won't mention.

bonjo1983

A lot of the smaller Airports cant afford a second exit landside for pilots and its the IAA that inforce Airport Security to make sure the same screening process that is carried out on passengers is also applied to pilots.

If it was durning flight time they would certinaly have to screen you as if you were a passenger.

Another interesting aspect, did it involve lube and rubber gloves lol

Steyr

If you ask me all the Airports be it regional or local should be state controlled instead of posting Gardai there etc so easy for people to smuggle drugs and other scum things into our Nation..:mad:

highlydebased

Read in the paper recently that two Dept of Transport "undercover" staff managed to conceal forbidden items and get them through the security at Shannon. Apparently two staff in Shannon security have now been suspended.

Davidth88

I have to laugh , about 18 months ago I flew to the US.

The next morning I was packing my laptop bag ready for work and found a 18 inch long screwdriver I had left in there ..... and guess what that same bag was my hand baggage 12 hrs before flying from DUB-> Newark.

Gave me a bit of a start at the time.....

I came to the conclusion that really security is a bit ' hit and miss ' .

One question always puzzles me, why to people always wait until they are the head of the queue before emptying their pockets, removing coat etc, as though it's a big surprise that these rules apply to them

cp251

One question always puzzles me, why to people always wait until they are the head of the queue before emptying their pockets, removing coat etc, as though it's a big surprise that these rules apply to them

Same reason, women will get to the cash desk hand over the intended purchase and THEN fiddle about searching for their purse in their handbag. Then when they get their change they carefully place it back in the purse and then the handbag all the while standing in the queue. Where's the mad smilie, uuuuhhhh:mad::mad::mad::mad::(:(:(:(

Davidth88

OMG that is soooooo off thread , but sooooo true !!!

Our man in Havana

I find it laughable that you can purchase most of your prohibited liquids in containers > 100ml after the security check in Dublin which makes the rule pointless.

Davidth88

I think the idea behind the no liquids rule is to stop you bringing on explosives in a liquid form . Now the liquids you can buy behind security I don't think includes anything more explosive than a whiskey.

However I can never understand why they remove a nail clipper from you ,then you can buy a glass bottle which could be a weapon .

I am convinced this has more to do with money than security ( ie they can't afford to stop selling booze ).

Our man in Havana

Why prohibit deodorant etc when you can buy the same ones in bigger containers after security? You have got to wonder is it about the money?

stephen_b

all liquids sold airside are scanned and checked before reaching the shops,infact all stock for shops airside pass through an xray machine before reaching the shelfs.

Davidth88

No you are missing the point , it's not the deodorants as such that are banned.

It's the containers.

After all that deodorant bottle could be filled with something else ( explosive ).

Of course the rather silly 100ML rule is just that , silly , I think they just had to have rules in place and had to have a line you cannot cross etc.

I have long since given up trying to understand the security rules when flying , they are different in every airport, for example at LHR now you don't remove laptops. In the US you have to remove shoes , here you don't ( unless you have boots ) .
I had a sweatshirt on last week flying thru JFK and had to remove that , made no sense at all.

Just have to submit to it, one thing for sure you will never ever win an argument with these guys , best to be polite after all they are only doing the job as they have been trained.

bonjo1983

The days of shoes being removed on this side of the atlantic are gone unless they full of metal and set off the arch then they need to be moved and screened.

As for removing jumpers and jackets its just easier to screent the passenger, if you were to beep or were randomly selected for a hand search its alot easier to search someone thats just waering a t-shirt instead of a jumper or jacket.

All liquids sold airside are screened before being passed airside. Alot of people say "but sure its under 100ml its nearly empty" security staff are instructed to go by the size of the container and not how much is left in it.

Alot of people also have problems with taking off there belts, the reason being most buckles are metal and set off the arch and the other reason being its very simple to conceal i small blade in a belt and would be seen on the xray machine.

robinph

stephen_b wrote: »

all liquids sold airside are scanned and checked before reaching the shops,infact all stock for shops airside pass through an xray machine before reaching the shelfs.

Are they really doing anything to that pallet of litre bottles of Ballygowan to get it through security? They are not doing any checks on it to make sure it's not one of these magical binary explosives that we are supposed to be so scared of, and they are not doing any checks on the glass bottles of alcohol that they flog in duty free either as I've not noticed any of the seals being broken on stuff I've bough.

It's all just a bunch of FUD to try and keep the population scared of some non-existant bad guys.

bonjo1983

The seals dont have to be broke, alot of airports now have Xray machines to scan bottles and this tells them whats in the bottle weather or not its harmfull, there fairly expensive so thats why there not at the passenger screening point.

robinph

So your telling me there are now xray machines that can scan a bottle and determine if it contains water/ whiskey/ mythical binary explosive/ perfume or not? Somehow I'm not convinced.

Anyway, I'm currently sat waiting on a flight in Dublin and just walked through the security a few minutes ago. The woman behind me had a full bottle of water which she had allegedly just purchased from the shop before security. I watched the security bloke pick it up, look a little confused for a moment and then walk around the scanner and hand it back to the woman saying "Ah, go on then, did you just buy this upstairs? Well the seals not broken so off you go."

At least he wasn't a muppet about it and he clearly knew these restrictions are a load of rubbish himself.

cp251

Omigod a security screener with common sense. What next? Actually I did get an easy run through security ad Dublin once. As it happened I knew the girl. She knew me. We'll leave it at that. Just as well I am a nice guy really:o

Flyer1

Just a little one for the wind, I do a bit of flying for fun on the weekends, and often go away on trips to the UK and mainland europe. Usually in aircraft ranging from 2 seaters to 10 seaters. Despite me being the pilot of my own aircraft, or being a crew member, we go through the same security as the passengers. i.e. shoes, belts, etc. off even though we're flying our own light aircraft. It's annoying but at the end of the day it's all towards everybodys safety. Lump it or leave it.

robinph

Flyer1 wrote: »

... it's all towards everybodys safety.

Thats the bit which I'm not convinced about.

qnhhpa

I'm not convinced either. Its just a publicity exercise to demonstrate to the public how 'secure' the airports are and flying in general is. Its a bit like the army checkpoints on border crossing roads between the north and south in times past. The checks only existed on the main roads - all the locals and whoever else wanted used the back roads.

Anyone can bring matches/cigarette lighter on board. Remember the 'shoe lace bomber'?. Those duty free bottles could be dangerous. I'm sure a determined lunatic could cause plenty of mayhem.

Admittedly the security is a deterant. But it is also a massive inconvenience and irritation. It puts me off flying.

bonjo1983

cp251 wrote: »

Omigod a security screener with common sense. What next?

the problem isnt about common sense, the IAA send around people checked in on flights to try pass through security, if that had of been an IAA person with the water the airprt would of been hit with a hugh penalty.

Its all very well to say ah sure your ok mam go on ahead and a few minutes later shes approaching sayin shes department of transport and the security persons job is on the line for not doing what he's instrucked to do.

The problem lies with the rules set by the Iirsh Aviation Authority not with the security at airports as they HAVE to comply with the rules issued as if said if they let someone off and its the IAA there job could be on the line.

bonjo1983

robinph wrote: »

So your telling me there are now xray machines that can scan a bottle and determine if it contains water/ whiskey/ mythical binary explosive/ perfume or not? Somehow I'm not convinced.


.

there ay go

http://www.optosecurity.com/en/optoscreener.php

random_banter

Is there anyone else here who would say they dont find the security measures a big inconvinience? Personally I dont mind it at all... so I organise myself when im packing.. I keep my liquids in small containers and put them in a ziplock bag which I put into my handbag.. not too difficult.. arrive at the airport- go to securty and remove my belt and sometimes shoes depending on what ones im wearing, throw it all in the tray and walk on through... also with dublin airport anyway I dont find the queues to be huge.

I cant understand why people have gripes with the extra security measures.. it is for everyones safety and it makes pasengers feel more secure IMO.

Our man in Havana

Has anyone here ever flown from Waterford airport? The security between the public and airside areas is ok except for the shop that has an opening onto both public and airside areas. Basically the shopkeeper has two hatches serving each side at the same time. The sterile airside area can be easily compromised. A bit of a joke imho.

tracker-man

robinph wrote: »

Thats the bit which I'm not convinced about.

qnhhpa wrote: »

I'm not convinced either. Its just a publicity exercise to demonstrate to the public how 'secure' the airports are and flying in general is.

Are you being serious? Would you feel safer then if none of these checks were in place? Even if they are random checks and a slight inconvenience? Anyone with some common sense should be fully ready for the security checks to get in and out as quickly as possible.

robinph wrote: »

It's all just a bunch of FUD to try and keep the population scared of some non-existant bad guys.

I think its been proven these "non-existant bad guys" do exist.

robinph

tracker-man wrote: »

Are you being serious? Would you feel safer then if none of these checks were in place?

Any new "security" measures that have been brought in in the last 7 years do absolutely nothing to make me feel any safer in the skys and do not achieve anything as far as actually making it harder for bad guys to do bad stuff in an airport or aircraft. All they do manage to do is scare the population into thinking that everyone is trying to kill them, which is actually what their aim is.

qnhhpa

Would you feel safer then if none of these checks were in place? Even if they are random checks and a slight inconvenience?

I wouldn't feel less safe if these checks weren't in place but I would feel less hassled and put upon.

Anyone with some common sense should be fully ready for the security checks to get in and out as quickly as possible.

And we should all 'baa' contentedly as we are fleeced.

I'm not saying there is no need for security but it is OTT. It generates control based on an atmosphere of fear.

Along with various charges, limitations on luggage, two hours of check in, shuffling in queues, an hour waiting for baggage and being treated as an item to process through a system, security adds to the hassle of the whole flying experience.

tracker-man

and what then do you suggest? I don't think its fair to criticize the way things are done now, without having a better alternative yourself...

Mint Sauce

tracker-man wrote: »

Anyone with some common sense should be fully ready for the security checks to get in and out as quickly as possible.

yes and no, i fly through UK and ireland airports atleast 2 to 3 times a year, dublin/knock/belfast and heathrow/gatwick, so i have an idea to expect queues, or i know how far the desk is where they check your boarding pass to the x ray machines, and use this time to removes shoes belts etc, transfer keys, wallet, change, MP3 to bag/jacket etc, so i'm ready to pass through quickly

however, used a regional airport last year, never used it before, due to transport to airport, checked in just before desk closed, and just got caught unprepared, only thing seperating check in and security was a deviding wall, infact, it was only a few steps, there was no boarding pass check desk before the security point, the guy who patoraled the arch, also checked your pass, so i wasn't quite ready, quicky removing jacket and laptop, and acidently went though the arch, still with wallet and keys in pocket and of course had to go though again

was the only time i can rememeber doing this, and will know for next time and be better prepared when i use that airport or similar

sebastianlieken

100ml of liquids.....remember to pee before customs so! lol

ah no, funny thing is im workin at lufthansa in germany atm, n i have to go thru metal detector evry morning....the amount of crap ya can get thru with, its mad! im jus seein what i can get thru with for the craic. i can get thru with stanly knives no bother! lol

robinph

tracker-man wrote: »

and what then do you suggest? I don't think its fair to criticize the way things are done now, without having a better alternative yourself...

Get rid of liquid ban and get rid of restrictions on size of hand luggage for starters. The amount of carry on I have is between me and the airline carrying me, it is not a security issue in the slightest. There is no need for the bans on things like nail clippers and razors either.

bonjo1983

Bond-007 wrote: »

Has anyone here ever flown from Waterford airport? The security between the public and airside areas is ok except for the shop that has an opening onto both public and airside areas.

That has ended at waterford airport and the ship is located at departures side, due to the security risk.

The liquids and gels is a bit of a waste of time. Alot of the security is all americanised and thats the big problem i feel.

Davidth88

One of the posters has raised a totally valid point , if you have a pallet load of 1 litre water bottle , is the technology good enough to tell any scanner operator that the middle bottles have not been tampered with ?

If these security checks are needed on flights , why not on ships? I recently took the HSS to Holyhead and back , no checks at all ( not even an ID check ).

Now I find these checks annoying but necessary part of travelling , but I would love someone to show me where attacks have actually been foiled , where a potential terrorist has been stopped with a bomb, or whatever hidden in their belt.

As for being prepared , I travel a lot , but even I am sometimes caught out , for example in Luton last month I was pulled up because the jacket I put through the scanner had too much change in the pockets ! ( I had flown about 6 times in 2 weeks and each time stuck my change in my jacket )

FlutterinBantam

sebastianlieken wrote: »

100ml of liquids.....remember to pee before customs so! lol

ah no, funny thing is im workin at lufthansa in germany atm, n i have to go thru metal detector evry morning....the amount of crap ya can get thru with, its mad! im jus seein what i can get thru with for the craic. i can get thru with stanly knives no bother! lol

I wouldn't find that funny at all, even if written properly.

Davidth88

I wouldn't find that funny at all, even if written properly.

It may not be funny as in ha ha , but if true it certainly shows the security up for what it is , a big ' show ' to try to make us secure .

My challenge is still there , show me a newspaper article where a would be terrorist has been stopped in security and charged ( and I don't mean a poor old granny with a pair of nail clippers ).... then my scepticism will take a night off .

random_banter

Davidth88 wrote: »

My challenge is still there , show me a newspaper article where a would be terrorist has been stopped in security and charged ( and I don't mean a poor old granny with a pair of nail clippers ).... then my scepticism will take a night off .

Richard Reid- the shoe bomber... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_(terrorist) - part of the reason, I would presume, that we are required to removed all metal parts of clothing for xray scanning. (As well as our shoes sometimes) Also an article saying that there were many more would-be soe bombers out there: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1729022.stm

And of course, the reason that we are so restricted in carrying liquids through security: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot .

I dont see why people have such problems with the current security measures, if they are intended to prevent things like the above from happening?

sebastianlieken

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I wouldn't find that funny at all, even if written properly.

Oh my god, the spelling policeman with a banana shoved up his hole. :rolleyes:

It's merely an illustration of the flaws in protocal. I'm trying to emphasise the point of how a potentially lethal weapon can get through an overhyped and exagerated system. I find it amusing that this is possible in todays paranoia fueled security checks. But alas, we obviously seem to have different senses of humour.

tracker-man

random_banter wrote: »

Richard Reid- the shoe bomber... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_(terrorist) - part of the reason, I would presume, that we are required to removed all metal parts of clothing for xray scanning. (As well as our shoes sometimes) Also an article saying that there were many more would-be soe bombers out there: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1729022.stm

And of course, the reason that we are so restricted in carrying liquids through security: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot .

I dont see why people have such problems with the current security measures, if they are intended to prevent things like the above from happening?

I agree with you, but the argument is that these security measures aren't security measures as such, just an elaborate way of making us all feel safe and sound. Obviously they are doing some good and because there haven't been loads of newspaper articles on the subject of terrorists getting past security doesn't
Mean the checks aren't working, but that they act as a major deterrent.

Re: getting a stanley knife past security, seeing what you can get past every day, real mature, especially from a member of staff.

Davidth88

R

ichard Reid- the shoe bomber... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_(terrorist) - part of the reason

No no no , you are missing my point , he WASN'T stopped in security. Nor were the ' liquid guys ' , the former was only caught because he was couldn't light a match , the latter because of intel.

Show me a person who WAS stopped in security , had a knife/gun, or whatever and was then successfully prosecuted as having a plot to hijack/destroy an aircraft.

I suspect no one can.

parsi

robinph wrote: »

Get rid of liquid ban and get rid of restrictions on size of hand luggage for starters. The amount of carry on I have is between me and the airline carrying me, it is not a security issue in the slightest. There is no need for the bans on things like nail clippers and razors either.

Agreed about liquids. However you can officially take on razors.

qnhhpa

they act as a major deterrent

Agreed.

getting a stanley knife past security, seeing what you can get past every day, real mature, especially from a member of staff.

May be immature and foolish, but really throws light on how effective or not all this 'security' is. Is all the inconvenience worth it if its just a PR exercise?

If its there just to assure people thats its safe to fly, it has to be balanced against the annoyance it causes which could put people off flying anyway.

I travelled to Europe by ferry and Eurotunnel last year on holiday and it was a much more relaxed and pleasant experience, if slower!

I don't want people not to fly - it pays my salary - safety is a priority but it has to be realistic and practical.

Why not scan everything and everybody with these super xray machines?

Why not make everyone travel naked with no luggage?

Why not ban everyone who looks suspect?

Why not just scan the baggage and scrutinise passengers without treating us all like terrorists?

As has been said by others - how many 'terrorists' have been stopped by security, before or after 9/11?

Only one I can think of is Michael Stone in Stormont...

FlutterinBantam

sebastianlieken wrote: »

Oh my god, the spelling policeman with a banana shoved up his hole. :rolleyes:

It's merely an illustration of the flaws in protocal. I'm trying to emphasise the point of how a potentially lethal weapon can get through an overhyped and exagerated system. I find it amusing that this is possible in todays paranoia fueled security checks. But alas, we obviously seem to have different senses of humour.

We most certainly do.
People like you give the Irish a bad name and demonstrate insecurity and social unawareness.

Guaranteed that every year some gink,who thinks he is funny boarding an Aer Lingus plane in JFK or elsewhere will make a bomb remark and wonder why he/she is arrested.
Then she/he will waste taxpayers money involving foreign affairs trying to prove.."Aaah sure he was only harmless"

grow up.

robinph

Probably not a complete list as I expect it's only including larger aircraft, but I came across this list from an article about a crash that just happened in Sudan:

Air disasters 1998 - now

Now what that list tells me is that far more time, effort and money should be spent on aircraft maintenance if you want to improve safety in the air than worrying about how many milliliters of water someone is carrying aboard with them.

interlocked

The biggest piece of metal that i carry is my watch which has a steel case and strap, i don't take it off going through the scanner, out of curiosity to see what happens. I've gone through over half a dozen times and nothing has happened.

So I take it that a pocketful of change or belt buckle wont make a lot of difference on their own??

Fabio

I've often forgotten my watch and it sets off the scanner....luck of the draw I suppose.