DAA staff raffle! Overheard in Dublin airport

Lapin · 14-09-2010 01:47AM

A few people have come on here and stated the bleeding obvious by informing us all that the rules have been in place since 2006.
We know the rules - thats not the issue here.

Not one person (apart from nag) has addressed the OP's initial query.
That is - why are liquids deemed too dangerous to be taken on board an aircraft, tossed into a nearby container where the potential damage could prove even more fatal? Liquids over 100ml are regarded as dangerous by virtue of the EU regulations. So by raffling off such items for charity (however admirable the intention may be) the DAA are, by definition, permitting the sale of potentially lethal substances to unsuspecting buyers.

Regardless of how harmless the items might be, if they are deemed unsafe to be carried on board an aircraft because of anti terrorist legislation, why is it assumed that they are safe for consumption on the ground ?

A fair question by the OP and one that deserves a more intellegent response.

pclancy · 14-09-2010 04:41AM

I dont see any health and safety issues in passing on sealed goods in as new condition.

I think the OP got plenty of intelligent responses...its obvious the laws are illogical in one sense and it seems stupid to then pass on said "dangerous" items to raffle winners but the point is thats the law and its there to catch the possiblity of some liquids being used to make dangersous concoctions of some type that "might" be used to make explosives. In order to prevent the use of some substances you have to ban them all.

Somebody from the DAA must have thought of this as well, especially from a legal point of view, I cant see them just taking whats been disposed of and passing it on-they leave themselves open to a huge can of worms by not checking what they actually contain. But if its sealed and factory freash I dont see an issue.

I think we all see it as being ironic but its just a fact of life now with air travel and until the percieved threat goes away its not going to change.

Terrontress · 14-09-2010 08:20AM

I agree with what is being said by Albert.

If my bringing 500ml of Ballygowan onto a plane is dangerous, why would they let me saunter off after confiscating it?

And if it is so critical to prevent it going through then why do they entrust all those mongoloids up at the airport to look for it?

testicle · 14-09-2010 09:14AM

pclancy wrote: »

I dont see any health and safety issues in passing on sealed goods in as new condition.

How do you knot it wasn't opened and resealed?

Dyr · 14-09-2010 09:20AM

I remember flying back form new york some tool trying to wander through security with a case full of spirits and the security trying to explain to him that he needed to go back to duty free with it to have it brought through for him, they nearly had to break out the finger puppets for this plank. If I was dealing with the likes of that I'd want a stiff drink and all.

AlbertFoth · 14-09-2010 09:26AM

pclancy wrote: »

I dont see any health and safety issues in passing on sealed goods in as new condition.

I dont think sealed goods are safe either even if they look like they are ' in as new condition'.

I'm quite sure a terrorist would make a bottle of whiskey full of combustable liquid look just like new, and even sealed. They can get hold of weapons and explosives so i,m sure getting a tool to seal a bottle they have tampered with would not be an issue.

My point still stands in my opinion, its a definite health and safety issue!

I wonder who would drink it if they found out it was confiscated from a person who fits the criteria of a terrorist or even just a plain nut job. Under that circumstance I certainly would not.

Ms. Chanandler Bong · 14-09-2010 09:32AM

AlbertFoth wrote: »

While eating macdonalds in Dublin Airport yesterday, (sun 12th Sept), I overheard 6 airport security staff discussing a raffle of passengers confiscated items taking place that day!

Apparently items which supposedly are a security threat, Beers, whiskey vodka, wine, champagne and who knows what else is raffled to raise money for charity! Admirable you may say!

If they are safe enough for staff to take home and drink then obviously they are not a threat at all!

Is it a money generating scam to make us spend more in the DAA shops?

Also, passing through the airport security recently i noticed the staff taking bottles of alleged "combustible" water from passengers. These possible combustibles were tossed into a wheelie bin!!!!!!! Hardly a safe way to deposit and safely contain these said possible threats.

I wonder what the protocols really are in disposing of these "dangerous" expensive drinks etc. I would like to know as this is a mockery of us travellers if this is true and i would like to know whats going on.

Its disgusting and not only that, how much precious water is needlesly thrown away.

Your water wasn't taken away because it's potentially dangerous. It was taken away because you were carrying more than the permitted amount of liquid in a container that isn't permitted. The container can only hold up to 100ml. Your bottle, at a minimum if you have the kids size;), is 250ml. Ergo you can't bring it on the plane.
http://www.dublinairport.com/at-airport/airport-security/EU_Liquids_Regulations_FAQs.html

I'm assuming the alcohol comes from duty-free bags that have been opened before returning on a day trip. See link below for regulations on buying duty-free on a day trip. It clearly states that you can do so only if the duty-free bag is still sealed & has the receipt inside.
http://www.dublinairport.com/at-airport/eu-regulations/

And before I'm accused, I do not work for the DAA.

It's the policy of any company I've ever worked for to hold a raffle for items left behind by customers. Some small places just hand them out to any staff, no raffle required! These things are checked to make sure they are fit for use, (ie consumption in the case of alcohol!) before being handed out. If you're silly enough to ignore obvious signs for regulations on what you can carry then you deserve to lose your items!

AlbertFoth · 14-09-2010 09:47AM

Cateryn

Are you serious! They takes bottles over 100ml because they are just not allowed!!!!! Where does it say that on any of your links. Anyway your behind in the discussion and your post really does not contribute in anyway to this thread. Please read previous posts.

Also you are very wrong. Liquids over 100ml are taken because they are deemed to have the possibility to be of, or a part of a possible threat. not just because TPTB decided to say " lets throw away water and liquids over 100ml".

http://www.transport.ie/aviation/AviationServices/aviationsecurity/index.asp?lang=ENG&loc=2402

https://www.ecac-ceac.org/index.php

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air/security/security_en.htm

Do some home work you might learn a thing or two.

Ms. Chanandler Bong · 14-09-2010 09:50AM

AlbertFoth wrote: »

I wonder who would drink it if they found out it was confiscated from a person who fits the criteria of a terrorist or even just a plain nut job. Under that circumstance I certainly would not.

If the criteria for 'terrorist' or 'nutjob' includes those that continue to attempt to bring liquids of more than 100ml onto a plane, then there are quite a few of them about! I'm sure the family of the person employed by the DAA are well aware that s/he gets things in raffles at work. If they don't want to drink/use it, that's their prerogative.

It seems to me that your original point was about your water being taken away from you & dumped in a bin before you even though it wasn't dangerous. That point was answered by quite a few posters a few times. Now, your point is that it's a H&S issue for the staff to be drinking any of the liquids they confiscate. If you're that worried about the health & safety of the DAA staff (& given your answers to another poster earlier, I don't think you like the DAA that much!), then ring them up & complain about the practice. Email them.

Ms. Chanandler Bong · 14-09-2010 09:53AM

AlbertFoth wrote: »

Cateryn

Are you serious! They takes bottles over 100ml because they are just not allowed!!!!! Where does it say that on any of your links. Anyway your behind in the discussion and your post really does not contribute in anyway to this thread. Please read previous posts.

Also you are very wrong. Liquids over 100ml are taken because they are deemed to have the possibility to be of, or a part of a possible threat. not just because TPTB decided to say " lets throw away water and liquids over 100ml".

http://www.transport.ie/aviation/AviationServices/aviationsecurity/index.asp?lang=ENG&loc=2402

https://www.ecac-ceac.org/index.php

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air/security/security_en.htm

Do some home work you might learn a thing or two.

I did some homework, the links are in my first post above. See the answer to question 3 on the page.

What do you mean by liquid?
Some things are evidently liquid, like drinks and perfume. Others are less obvious, like gels, pastes, lotions, mixture of liquids and solids and the contents of aerosols. Some examples of these are toothpastes, hair gels, face creams, liquid cosmetics, lip-gloss, deodorants, perfumes and shaving foam.

Even bottles of water?
Yes, even water that is in a container over 100ml is not permitted through security.

No-one is saying specifically water or alcohol, liquids over 100ml aren't allowed. Simple fact, no getting around it.

Not wasting my time arguing with someone who can't grasp that basic piece of information...

AlbertFoth · 14-09-2010 10:08AM

Cateryn,
Am I not allowed to have a valid point! This is a discussion board and people agree with me too.

I certainly do not have a problem with the DAA i fly frequently through Dublin Airport and have found the experience fine so far!

I have been checking into this and will continue to do so unlike you! From what i can gather so far this practice may well be frowned upon by the agencies who control security issues for DAA security.

Once again i'm not attacking the DAA i'm simply saying that I think they are doing wrong in one particular dept so please stop trying to insinuate any different.

You seem NOT to have an open mind that can look at issues in an intelligent unbiased and factual way, you post links which provide nothing to the thread and seem to be deadset on protecting the DAA for some reason.

Its a state owned body and thus should be open to discussion and if needed, critisism by us tax payers.

Did you check my links Cateryn? These are the people that control security at Dublin Airport and they are totally not affiliated in any way. I,m pretty sure they would defo frown upon this practice as it makes a mockery of the whole thing.

As to your statement about my original post changing to a health and safety issue, whats the problem with that? This thread is moving forward and so are my opinions, thats whats great about discussions, you get to define your point even if it may change a bit.

If you spent more time looking into this rather than try to make me look bad we all might learn something.

Albert

AlbertFoth · 14-09-2010 10:11AM

catreyn wrote: »

I did some homework, the links are in my first post above. See the answer to question 3 on the page.

What do you mean by liquid?
Some things are evidently liquid, like drinks and perfume. Others are less obvious, like gels, pastes, lotions, mixture of liquids and solids and the contents of aerosols. Some examples of these are toothpastes, hair gels, face creams, liquid cosmetics, lip-gloss, deodorants, perfumes and shaving foam.

Even bottles of water?
Yes, even water that is in a container over 100ml is not permitted through security.

No-one is saying specifically water or alcohol, liquids over 100ml aren't allowed. Simple fact, no getting around it.

Not wasting my time arguing with someone who can't grasp that basic piece of information...

Once again your not reading into this thread in a productive manner. But as your copied and pasted part shows, yes there are more potential threats being given to staff than just water and alcohol, so thats even worse in my opinion

Whats your point????? You think I was only discussing water! We all know the rules that are under discussion. Thanks for you input but like I said in my last post your not contributing anything positive.

Dacian · 14-09-2010 10:20AM

catreyn wrote: »

Your water wasn't taken away because it's potentially dangerous. It was taken away because you were carrying more than the permitted amount of liquid in a container that isn't permitted. The container can only hold up to 100ml. Your bottle, at a minimum if you have the kids size;), is 250ml. Ergo you can't bring it on the plane.
http://www.dublinairport.com/at-airport/airport-security/EU_Liquids_Regulations_FAQs.html

Its this simple. The rules say no liquids over 100ml.

I have had bottles of water taken from me, no-one ever told me they were dangerous, combustible, corrosive, explosive or anything sinister. I was plainly told you cannot have more then 100ml liquid in any single container.

The reasoning behind this is that you could still 'smuggle' liquid/gel explosives through security and then mix them once airside. However it is estimated that a liquid/gel bomb of 100ml or less would have minimal impact on an aircraft, thus the 100ml limit on containers.

Now personally I think the rule is nonsensical considering that 'terrorists' could purchase 40% ABV spirits in 1 litre bottles after security. Or that by focusing on the (so far) failed attempts to use liquid explosives the security people may miss the next attempt.

The DAA has been clear on what it does with valuable confiscated items. There is no conspiracy here.

AlbertFoth, for thread productivity purposes can you please clarify;

Are you angry at the rules?
Are you angry at the DAA for enforcing the rules?
Angry at being told you had a potentially combustible substance?
Or angry that they are raffling off the valuable items?

urajoke · 14-09-2010 10:21AM

AlbertFoth wrote: »

Urajoke,I think your missing the point here and like alpha papa all your trying to do is stick up for the DAA for some reason.

I'm not missing the point at all. I'm merely saying I agree with their policy. It's called having an OPINION. I have accepted yours and just because someone disagrees with you doesn't automatically mean they work for the DAA.

AlbertFoth · 14-09-2010 11:01AM

Ok Dacian

In my original post I told of a conversation I could not help but listen to in the airport. These were security staff who seemed to have a real problem with the practice of raffling prohibited liquids.

I wanted to know what the protocols were for disposing of said items.

As the thread has progressed I have concluded that this may also be a health and safety issue.

I have had some positive replies from people who actually can see the bigger picture here that there is a potential for staff members to receive items that may well be dangerous. Simple maths point to it happening at some point.

I am not angry with DAA, their procedures or anything else about them for that matter. I do, though, have concerns about this raffling off of potentially dangerous goods. They ARE taken because of potential threat value and not just because they are too big. Lets make that clear!

I may have been slightly annoyed at some people here by the way they dont seem to want to look past their noses and keep posting DAA links that do not address my points.

So I apologise if I have come across as angry!

I just want to get a difinative answer and am currently trying to find an email address of someone relevant from one of the agencies who are involved in DAA security who will be able to answer if this practice is indeed bona fide.

Terrontress · 14-09-2010 01:20PM

It isn't simply DAA's fault but the whole system is ridiculous.

As I said before, I try to get past security with a dangerous liquid. I get caught and I'm allowed to walk on while the liquid is tossed in the bin. What if caught with a gun? Walk on?

Personally, I have forgotten about liquids in the past and not had them confiscated. Not even mentioned. So keep trying to go through until you get it in.

Thirdly, if 101ml is dangerous but 100ml is not then why not get my co-terrorist to bring a further 100ml of Ballygowan and another to do likewise.

Finally, Albert's point holds. If it is not safe to bring on to a plane, it is not safe for an unwitting DAA staff member to consume.

andy_g · 14-09-2010 05:11PM

I love the way people are mentioning liquid explosive in this thread anyone that knows explosives knows that there is no such thing as liquid explosive.
The only type that could be considered a liquid explosive is nitro glicerian and to be honest you dont want to hold that the slightest jerk it will go off in your hand.

Also if you wanted to do something to an A/C you dont even need any weapons or liquids to do damage. Thats all im going to say on the matter for the moment.

magneticimpulse · 14-09-2010 05:26PM

andy_g wrote: »

I love the way people are mentioning liquid explosive in this thread anyone that knows explosives knows that there is no such thing as liquid explosive.
The only type that could be considered a liquid explosive is nitro glicerian and to be honest you dont want to hold that the slightest jerk it will go off in your hand.

Also if you wanted to do something to an A/C you dont even need any weapons or liquids to do damage. Thats all im going to say on the matter for the moment.

No nail polish remover and hair bleach can be combined to make a very known explosive...and that was in fact the 2 liquids which were found to cause this ban on minimal liquids. I do think its a joke fire lighters can be brought on...the plane is full of fuel!!! Which can be easily put on fire.

Anyway, another reason they might want to do it, is to minimise drugs being brought into a country? I mean you can transport cocaine, just about any drug in liquid form.

Overall I think people are really stupid if they dont know 4 years later that you are not allowed to take liquids/paste/gel in your hand luggage above 100ml. Or the various other things. If it is taken off them, its their own fault for not reading any documentation before their flight. What is done afterwards is of no concern...it prob does end up in the bin anyway...but that was the silly persons fault in 1st place to carry it.

If they want to bring alcohol etc...just put it in a box and into checked in baggage. Its a standard rule thats not just in Ireland.

michaelflynn61 · 14-09-2010 06:04PM

I think a bit of common sense needs to be used here.

One of the reasons why the 100mls ban came in was to prevent to opportunity for people to bring on potentially dangerous liquids on board. It was not saying that every liquid over 100mls was potentially dangerous but like I said to prevent the possibility of someone bringing potentially dangerous liquids on board.

For anyone to try to treat all confiscated liquids as dangerous is ludicrous. As for "combustible" water?? Don't get me started!! You can't bring on liquids over 100mls, no your water is not dangerous but its volume violates regulations so tough.

Like I said, lets use some common sense here. You don't have to agree with the regulations neither should you be extremist about them but you just have to follow them. Seemples.

Lapin · 15-09-2010 01:41AM

andy_g wrote: »

I love the way people are mentioning liquid explosive in this thread....

Who, When & where ?

pclancy · 15-09-2010 01:51AM

testicle wrote: »

How do you knot it wasn't opened and resealed?

Indeed I don't know that but I would be amazed if they havent thought of that already and are offering goods that break any health and safety requirements.

Lapin · 15-09-2010 02:03AM

andy_g wrote: »

The only type that could be considered a liquid explosive is nitro glicerian and to be honest you dont want to hold that the slightest jerk it will go off in your hand.

Really ?

In that case we'll never find out which unfortunate person won this substance in the DAA raffle.

He or she won't be able to put their hand up to claim their prize if they are standing near a bottle Nitroglycerin while airport security chuck it into the nearest bin. Neither will anyone else in the the airport for that matter.

Del2005 · 15-09-2010 03:53AM

pclancy wrote: »

Indeed I don't know that but I would be amazed if they havent thought of that already and are offering goods that break any health and safety requirements.

Is that not what Albert is trying to say. They take a bottle off someone at security as it exceeds the 100ml rule. They look at this bottle and see that it's sealed so they give it away to charity/raffle it off.

How do they know that the person they took it off isn't a terrorist, or just a good old fashioned nutter, who wants to kill totally random people with poisoned bottles that are confiscated at airport security.

I can see how they can sell on non food products, but if a foodstuff is confiscated it should be treated as dangerous and destroyed. I'm sure if I searched the net I'd find numerous sites on how to reseal items.

Danbo! · 16-09-2010 01:10AM

There is this to consider too...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0811/breaking48.html

Man jailed over 'liquid cocaine' death
Related

* Legalising drugs will not curb violence to the psyche | 04/08/2008

A drug smuggler was jailed in Britain for 20 years today for the manslaughter of a taxi driver who died after unwittingly drinking pure liquid cocaine from a rum bottle.

Lascell Malcolm (63) had been given the bottle of Bounty Rum by a friend who had no idea of its lethal contents.

In fact it had been used to smuggle the cocaine into the United Kingdom by Martin Newman, who was convicted of manslaughter today by a jury at Croydon Crown Court. Newman was sentenced to 20 years for manslaughter and 15 years, to run concurrently, for the importation of cocaine.

The jury took just three hours to convict Newman after hearing how he had duped an acquaintance into agreeing to carrying the rum for him.

Mr Malcolm was given the bottle by a friend Antoinette Corlis after refusing to take payment for a lift home after she returned from a Caribbean holiday. Ms Corlis, who had no idea of the bottle’s contents, had in turn been given the rum by Michael Lawrence, who was also unaware of what it contained.

He was carrying it back to the UK from St Lucia for Newman, who was the only one who knew there was 246g (8.7oz) of pure cocaine dissolved into the alcohol, and that just a teaspoon of the liquid could be fatal. He had given two bottles to Mr Lawrence before flying from St Lucia to Gatwick Airport, claiming his own baggage was overweight.

Newman planned to collect the bottles upon arrival in the UK, but he was detained by Customs officers.

Mr Lawrence waited for Newman for a short while before leaving to catch a connecting flight to his home in Switzerland, giving one of the bottles to Ms Corlis. She was only to realise the full horror of what she had unwittingly done when she tried to contact Mr Malcolm over the following days.

Mr Malcolm, a father-of-two from Haringey, north London, had drunk a shot of the rum along with a pint of Guinness, hours after Ms Corlis had given him the bottle on May 25th last year.

But at 4am the next day, he called emergency services telling them he could not walk, had a headache and thought he was dying. He was admitted and discharged from hospital but later collapsed and died in front of his son. He had suffered a heart attack brought on by cocaine poisoning.

The link to the cocaine-laced rum emerged later that day when two friends, visiting Mr Malcolm’s house to pay their respects, found the bottle and decided to make a toast.

Both men, Charles Roach and Trevor Tugman, spat out the foul-tasting liquid but were taken to hospital after suffering seizures.

dfx- · 16-09-2010 04:48PM

catreyn wrote: »

Your water wasn't taken away because it's potentially dangerous. It was taken away because you were carrying more than the permitted amount of liquid in a container that isn't permitted. The container can only hold up to 100ml. Your bottle, at a minimum if you have the kids size;), is 250ml. Ergo you can't bring it on the plane.
http://www.dublinairport.com/at-airport/airport-security/EU_Liquids_Regulations_FAQs.html

Yes it was.

I love these reactions. They're the rules...

The reason why they are the rules is because they're considered dangerous. DAA considers 101 ml of water dangerous by applying these rules - by default. You can spin it anyway you like after that.

You could do some damage with twenty 50ml bottles of acid that looks like nail polish or water. I could make up a solution in my lab of 12M sulphuric acid in 10 minutes and label it as water. Not one person at security would be able to distinguish it from water.

andy_g wrote: »

The only type that could be considered a liquid explosive is nitro glicerian and to be honest you dont want to hold that the slightest jerk it will go off in your hand.

Ramzy Youssef got around that problem already - he stabilised it and bombed a passenger plane

According to a U.S. government official familiar with the transcripts of an interrogation of Youssef by Filipino security forces, Youssef was able to develop his own brand of liquid but stable nitroglycerin that he would put in a contact lens case with cotton wool as a stabilizer. Besides nitroglycerin, other ingredients of the bomb included minute parts of sulphuric acid, silver azide, acetone, nitrobenzene and nitrate, the U.S. official said.

All of which would look like water individually, except maybe silver azide..

AlbertFoth · 19-09-2010 08:38PM

Well I sent a mail to the department of transport asking who i speak to with regards to procedures in the airport as far as prohibited items are concerned. I never mentioned the raffle and the potential problems it has.

So, instead of passing me onto a D of T manager , my message was passed to the DAA duty manager who responded immediately, which was nice.

I decided to ask the question this thread has an obvious disagreement with................................and hey guess what! Still waiting on a reply nearly 5 days later. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm thats a great customer service. ASU.DM@daa.ie maybe ye can get some sense from them.........

very quick to reply to a 'normal' query but not ours, sorry mine! Smells very bad to me.

Would be good if we all emailed them then case closed, cos they are not repling to me!

Any thoughts

Let me know if you get any replies, and also they must be posted in full as proof!

testicle · 21-09-2010 08:25PM

DAA Customer Relations wrote: »

It should be noted that only items that have clearly not been tampered with or opened are fit for raffling.

What about items that have been tampered with, but it is not clear that they have been tampered with?

Cookie_Monster · 22-09-2010 02:35PM

testicle wrote: »

What about items that have been tampered with, but it is not clear that they have been tampered with?

+1.

everything confiscated should be destroyed. Handing it over to charity or otherwise is an admittance that the good are not in fact any threat and as such makes the whole rule kinda pointless.

maggy_thatcher · 22-09-2010 03:13PM

michaelflynn61 wrote: »

I think a bit of common sense needs to be used here.

If people applied common sense, the stupid liquid ban would be removed anyway -- at the moment you can bring in 10x100ml containers per person. There's nothing to stop you bringing 10x100ml containers of "dangerous" chemicals airside, then buying a 1l bottle of water, emptying the bottle and filling it back up again with these "dodgy chemicals".

If 10x100ml is safe, why isn't 1x1l?

the_syco · 22-09-2010 04:51PM

AlbertFoth wrote: »

Not a healthy post history i must say.

Coming from someone who has a posting history of only attacking a raffle that benefits charities, I think Alpha Papa has a very healthy post hstory...

=-=

As for people getting stuff confiscated for breaking the rules, though sh|t. The rules are clearly displayed, and apply to everyone.

DAA staff raffle! Overheard in Dublin airport

Comments