New Shoe Scanning Ritual

Forgive me if this has already been posted in my absence, I had a quick search here for a mention.

It seems that BAA are trailing a new method of shoe scanning at T3.....
Having queued once for the normal security scan, possibly in the "shorter" Fast Track queue, we now have to join another combined queue (just after the non existent passport checks) and remove our shoes to be put through a smaller (shoe sized) xray machine.

How idiotic is that!!!!!
We have already queued once, during which is a perfect time to remove our shoes without causing us too much extra delay, but now we need queue again without fast track privilege.
It was very quiet on new Years eve, but I dread to think the what the additional queues will be like during busy times.... Hopefully it is a trial that won't last.

Originally posted by PVGSLF

How idiotic is that!!!!!
We have already queued once, during which is a perfect time to remove our shoes without causing us too much extra delay, but now we need queue again without fast track privilege.
It was very quiet on new Years eve, but I dread to think the what the additional queues will be like during busy times.... Hopefully it is a trial that won't last.

Perhaps its worth considering that the new shoe scanner could be slightly different technology to detect and stay ahead of what terrorists have constantly tried to do over the past few years... that is ... to bring an aircraft full of people like us out of the sky !! ..... it sometimes seems that we all suffer from short memories of how close we were in august to a number of aircraft being bought down with the loss of 000's of lives and further back than that I'm sure some of you will remember Richard Reid "The Shoe Bomber" who, had it not been for other passengers would have bought an AA Aircraft down mid flight using explosives in his shoe.

I for one would much rather queue for a few minutes more, give up my fast track privileges and arrive in one piece !

Just my 2c worth

Cheers

Mark

[RichardMannion]

When have we ever known BAA to exhibit logic or common sense?

Thanks,
Richard

If they are trying to stop another shoe bomber then it doesn't make a lot of sense to have people man-handle their shoes a few times prior to boarding as the acetone peroxide that is used as a detonator becomes unstable at room temperature. I bet thats something the screeners don't consider as they watch a thousand shoes an hour pass by. There are other more tell tale signs that can be used such as the air testing devices being used in some US airports currently.

Mas I think the OP's point wasn't that it was silly to do the check, I believe he meant that the checks could be combined to avoid people having to queue twice to get through security.

Originally posted by adam777
If they are trying to stop another shoe bomber then it doesn't make a lot of sense to have people man-handle their shoes a few times prior to boarding as the acetone peroxide that is used as a detonator becomes unstable at room temperature. I bet thats something the screeners don't consider as they watch a thousand shoes an hour pass by. There are other more tell tale signs that can be used such as the air testing devices being used in some US airports currently.

Mas I think the OP's point wasn't that it was silly to do the check, I believe he meant that the checks could be combined to avoid people having to queue twice to get through security.

I'm not a chemistry expert ..... but there are any number of things that can be hidden in a shoe/sole not just things that may have been used in the past.....and probably plenty of thing that are very stable and its reasonable to assume that the 'shoe scanner' is not just 'another' xray machine.

I fully appreciate what is being said about combining the checks and on the face of it that would seem to make sense .... but there may be a good and valid reason (or not) as to why they have not been combined .... and after all in order to make life difficult for the potential terrorist (whos aim is bluntly to kill the likes of you and I) it is a sad consequence that life has to be made difficult for us the travelling public.

Cheers & Happy New Year

Mark

Originally posted by mas66
it is a sad consequence that life has to be made difficult for us the travelling public.

I'm not sure I necessarily see that as being the case. I am sure increased security will not make life easier for traveling Joe Public, but it could be argued that BAA's ineptitude, weak contingency planning and poor ability to implement is a bigger factor.

Originally posted by mas66

Originally posted by PVGSLF

How idiotic is that!!!!!
We have already queued once, during which is a perfect time to remove our shoes without causing us too much extra delay, but now we need queue again without fast track privilege.
It was very quiet on new Years eve, but I dread to think the what the additional queues will be like during busy times.... Hopefully it is a trial that won't last.

Totally agree[y]

Perhaps its worth considering that the new shoe scanner could be slightly different technology to detect and stay ahead of what terrorists have constantly tried to do over the past few years... that is ... to bring an aircraft full of people like us out of the sky !! ..... it sometimes seems that we all suffer from short memories of how close we were in august to a number of aircraft being bought down with the loss of 000's of lives and further back than that I'm sure some of you will remember Richard Reid "The Shoe Bomber" who, had it not been for other passengers would have bought an AA Aircraft down mid flight using explosives in his shoe.

I for one would much rather queue for a few minutes more, give up my fast track privileges and arrive in one piece !

Just my 2c worth

Cheers

Mark

Originally posted by GrinningJackanapes
For my 2 bits, I wonder if the extra step isn't more psychological than anything -- by this I mean if a terrorist has to go through yet another step in the search process, it might make them that much more nervous and skittish which -- God willing -- would be recognized by anyone profiling for odd behaviour (and at the same time qualify the miscreant to play defense for Chelsea [}:)]). It's a stretch, but worth some consideration...
GJ

Oh, my - GJ said it for me! We agree on something??? [:0]

Anyway, there's another factor, probably much more basic (which is to say BAA probably didn't think like GJ, although it makes perfect sense to me and probably to many of us): the cost of the new machine. See, if one was dedicated to Fast Track, and that line was empty, there'd be whinging aplenty from those queued up for regular security. So BAA penny-pinched by not springing for a dedicated Fast Track machine. [n]

So, by making everyone mingle and use it, they're a) appearing to placate the masses, and b) enraging those of us who use Fast Track. Than again, maybe that's part of the plan! [:w] (BAA! 'Nuff said!)

Originally posted by sailor99

Originally posted by mas66
it is a sad consequence that life has to be made difficult for us the travelling public.

I'm not sure I necessarily see that as being the case. I am sure increased security will not make life easier for traveling Joe Public, but it could be argued that BAA's ineptitude, weak contingency planning and poor ability to implement is a bigger factor.

I think we all have our own opinions about BAA which I'm sure have been thrashed out on many other threads..... I too have my own and suffice to say they are not always favourable !
That said people often compare the running of BAA security with that of running other businesses ... I think in that regard its very difficult to draw a comparison ...... if another comapny gets it wrong in some way (including dare I say VS) ..... they will say "oops sorry, we got it wrong it wont happen again" .... if BAA security get it wrong it could cost 000's of lives .... with no room for an "oops sorry" ..... Just another thought

Cheers

Mark

Originally posted by PVGSLF
How idiotic is that!!!!!

They were doing this on 22 Dec, but not a couple of weeks earlier.

They randomly pick pax out of the stream coming in from the main security. I guess this allows them to perform the "one in three" shoe requirement from the DFT rather than checking everyone like they were doing.

There was no queue at this second check when I did it, just a bunch of confused pax joking about what a load of b@ll@cks the whole palava is.

Cheers, Howard

They were targeting everyone this morning, as I tried to side step the whole thing and didn't get very far with that one, I guess it is faster than doing it at the normal screening, but really, it could be better done (like so many things under BAA's control!)

I'm sure travelling used to be more fun

When, I ask, are we going to be able to enter into the Olympics in some sort of airport security triathlon?;)[}:)]

VS.

Some of us have to work on these aircraft. I'd much rather have people scanned an extra time than know crew and pax are potentially at more risk.

Originally posted by FlyCC
Some of us have to work on these aircraft. I'd much rather have people scanned an extra time than know crew and pax are potentially at more risk.

Just out of interest, how many screenings do you go though before getting access to an aircraft? The reason I ask is that 20/20 (one of the better US docu-news shows) recently showed TSA staff at LAX (I think it was LAX) walking around checkpoints that they themselves were supposed to go through and just flashing their ID.

We go through all the necessary security screenings. Although we do have an air-side pass, but that's basically just a criminal record and 5yr reference check.

We werenÕt allowed to carry any cosmetics (including our toothpaste for layover) just as the passengers were not able to.

Originally posted by adam777

Just out of interest, how many screenings do you go though before getting access to an aircraft? The reason I ask is that 20/20 (one of the better US docu-news shows) recently showed TSA staff at LAX (I think it was LAX) walking around checkpoints that they themselves were supposed to go through and just flashing their ID.

At LHR terminal 2 recently I saw one of the security operatives being screened before taking up his position at the machine.

Paul

I may be being dense, but isn't it rather silly to split security into stages at different locations? In the (unimaginable) position that I wanted to carry a long blade airside, could I now conceal it in the sole of my size elevens, triggering the metal detector at Stage 1 but, once the wands narrowed it down to my shoes, leaving the opportunity to withdraw and conceal it in my clothing before going through Stage 2? I hope someone has thought of this but it is BAA we're talking about, and their incompetence in so many other areas is legendary - and all too visible.

And for FlyCC - you may prefer 'to have people scanned an extra time than know crew and pax are potentially at more risk'. I'd prefer to have a sensible security system in place which delivers greater effect and less politically-correct process. If I'm the one singled out for SSSS in such a system, so be it - it would cause me less irritation than the current nonsense. Little I've seen of UK and US airport security gives me confidence that we are party to more than OTT umbrella-waving.

Bullsh!t, in this area as so many others, seems to be an attractive alternative to effectiveness.

David

Whilst its very clear that some on this forum have very strong views about BAA and no doubt some of that is very well founded (and some not !) .... however BAA is a very large outfit covering many aspects of running airports, what we are focusing on here is SECURITY of aircraft, passengers and staff departing from, arriving at or passing through Heathrow and other BAA airports.

What a lot of people fail to acknowledge is that (thank god) there have been very few, if any, serious incidents resulting from failures in airport security at the airports we are talking about ....... regardless of what else BAA may be good or bad at, how can you argue with that track record ??

Its very easy for us (including me) to be armchair experts in airport security based on what we observe or experience passing through an airport or waiting in a queue. It seems to me that some only rubbish the security system when they have had to wait that little bit longer, or have been subjected to something out of the ordinary or dare I say are denied their 'Fast Track' or 'Gold Card' benefits.

Ask yourself how often you moan when you 'fly' thru security ??

Apologies for the rant

Cheers
Mark

Hi Mark

what we are focusing on here is SECURITY of aircraft, passengers and staff departing from, arriving at or passing through Heathrow and other BAA airports.

I wish I could believe it is true that security is uppermost in the minds of those at BAA, the DfT and the EC's Energy and Transport Directorate, but it is not. If it were, then we would be back to August 2006 and we'd all be lined up at security without any cabin baggage wearing nothing but thongs and primed for a full cavity inspection. In practice, the end result of the three bodies was clearly a compromise between security and the realities of the logistics and practices that would be acceptable to keep pax flying, and the airlines and airports in profit.

What a lot of people fail to acknowledge is that (thank god) there have been very few, if any, serious incidents resulting from failures in airport security at the airports we are talking about ....... regardless of what else BAA may be good or bad at, how can you argue with that track record ??

Granted, this is a very good point that I am sure has a good deal of basis to it.

Its very easy for us (including me) to be armchair experts in airport security based on what we observe or experience passing through an airport or waiting in a queue. It seems to me that some only rubbish the security system when they have had to wait that little bit longer, or have been subjected to something out of the ordinary or dare I say are denied their 'Fast Track' or 'Gold Card' benefits.

I think it speaks for itself when the airports have had to install separate security for airside staff and airline crew. Long delays for them means expense. A clear case of the customer coming a distant second.

Ask yourself how often you moan when you 'fly' thru security ??

I do comment when security is good - but it can hardly be a coincidence that this is usually not a BAA airport - for example, MAN, LBA and LCY immediately come to mind as examples of UK airports I've used several times since August that have had negigible security delays - and almost all these flights were in (gasp) economy. In comparison, the same can consistently not be said for LGW, LHR or EDI where the 'cattle prodding and sheep herding' is at its worst. The rare exceptions for BAA are GLA domestic, and the Zone R T1 BA premium security at LHR, both are usually what I would consider reasonable (under five minutes).

Cheers, Howard

This morning, they were selecting people at random for shoe X-rays. I was not picked. So I needn't have bothered washing my feet or hunting out a matching pair of socks with no holes in

[mitchja]

My guess is that this new shoe scanner is not in fact an x-ray more likely to be an explosives detector. Remember an x-ray will not detect any form of explosive material. The only way explosives can be detected is by means of 'sniffing' a sample of air blown across an item.

The other thing worth noting is that there's actually more to airport security than just the physical x-ray scanners and the walk through detectors. The staff will be watching the way you act and react to them during the whole process.

Regards

Originally posted by GrinningJackanapes
We're lucky no terrorist has sewn explosives into a brassiere...otherwise we'd have line ups at security inspection that resembled Barbara Windsor in a Carry On film.

GJ

Or underpants [:0]

I though Howard made some good points in his post. I'd like to add that perhaps the reason why BAA is so poor is that it devotes insufficient space, investment, training and staff to security. Rather, if it lopped off a little of the shopping area instead, the customer service it owes to people may improve. I've nothing against these new checks, and everything against a business that has its priorities in the wrong place.

I want to be safe in the air.
I do not want efficiency, stupidity and overly complicated/badly organised security procedures.

VS.

Originally posted by VS045
I want to be safe in the air.
I do not want efficiency, stupidity and overly complicated/badly organised security procedures

Bit confused [?] can you explain what you mean here..... its quite sweeping ??

Cheers

Mark [}:)]

I think, perhaps, 'officiousness'?

Best wishes

David