Jul 18, 2013, 9:11 am
Last edit by: stifle
As and from 22 November 2013, passengers who are selected for a body scan may decline and receive a "private search alternative".
Body scanners are in place or on their way to the majority of major international airports in the UK. As of the end of 2013, they are deployed in LHR, LGW, BHX, MAN, EDI, GLA, STN, LCY, and BFS and were deployed in late 2014/early 2015 to ABZ, BHD, BRS, CWL, EMA, LBA, LPL, LTN, NCL and PIK. Until 21 November 2013, passengers declining a scan once selected were denied passage through the checkpoint and offloaded from their flight. As of 22 November 2013, passengers selected may decline a scan and will be hand-searched in a private room. This search may require the loosening or removal of some items of clothing and the passenger may have a witness present. The passenger's carry-on items will also be thoroughly searched and may be subject to explosive threat detection swabbing. Details of some FlyerTalkers' opt-out experiences can be read in post #606 and #661.
All body scanners in the UK are of the millimetre wave type. Backscatter machines were previously used but withdrawn in 2012. There are 4 models in use: the L3 ProVision, the L3 ProVision 2, the Smiths eqo (which has a passing resemblance to the single-pose Rapiscan backscatter), and the Rohde & Schwarz Quick Personnel Scanner. All use Automatic Threat Recognition software so the result of the scan is immediately visible in the form of a so-called "Gumby" figure on the screen. The passenger and the security clerk will see the figure and any anomalies are outlined with boxes; these areas are then patted down.
Scanners are not used as primary and all passengers pass through walk-through metal detectors in the first instance. In most locations, the scanner is associated with one WTMD and if you trigger this WTMD you will be directed to the scanner. Note that WTMDs in the UK are set to randomly beep with a certain probability (perhaps 15%) even if you have no metal. In some locations, however, the scanner is set back from the checkpoint and security clerks select people based on undisclosed criteria, sometimes after they have already packed up their stuff and put it back in their bags/pockets/etc.
A passenger may, if so inclined, request to be screened by the scanner rather than passing through the WTMD, which one supposes may be preferable to certain passengers possessed of metal implants which they cannot divest.
Historically the chance of being selected for scanning on any given trip was quite low, as there are generally multiple lanes at any given checkpoint but only one or two scanners. This is now changing at non-London airports where the lanes with scanners are used most and non-scanner lanes only opened to handle peak demand, and at London airports where more scanners are being installed. It was also usually the case through 2014 that fast track lanes for premium and status passengers were WTMD only; this is sadly history now.
Unless otherwise stated, the scanners below are located behind WTMDs and passengers beeping the WTMDs are scanned.
Scanner locations per airport:
LHR T1: Closed
LHR T2: Scanners on all lanes behind WTMD, except the very furthest lane from the entrance.
LHR T3: Recent information required.
LHR T4: Recent information required.
LHR T5: Scanners on most lanes behind WTMD. Due to limited space the lanes at either end of north checkpoint and at either end of south checkpoint (but not fast track) are scanner-free.
LGW TN: WTMD + scanner in every lane.
LGW TS: WTMD + scanner in every lane. Sometimes scanners switched to primary.
MAN: Scanners: one per checkpoint, used as secondary screening in lieu of pat-down if WTMD triggered.
EDI: Update needed from new checkpoint
STN: Scanners behind the WTMDs for lanes 7/8 and 15/16.
LCY: Scanners in both checkpoints, used as secondary. Two safe lanes in the old checkpoint (the one with automatic boarding pass scan gates) so use that and try to SDOO.
GLA: Between lanes 3 and 4. Note, fast track normally uses lanes 1 and 2 but you can get unlucky. (Updated 25 January 2014)
BFS: Scanner used as secondary if you trip the WTMD.
ABZ: Information needed
SOU: Scanner behind the only WTMD
BHD, LPL, BRS, EMA, NCL, LBA, LTN, CWL: Information also needed
See also: https://www.gov.uk/government/speech...ty-scanners--2
UK body scanners - opt outs permitted 22 November 2013
Jan 27, 2014, 5:28 pm
#616
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,638
Following on from my experience above I completed a feedback form on the Edinburgh airport website pointing out the positives and negatives of my experience. I received a call today from Supervisor #2 thanking me for my feedback. He confirmed that I have a right to opt out of a body scan subject to a private search. He also said that there were five other staff members of his rank, any of whom could be on duty depending on shift patterns, and he would remind them of the rules as and when he saw them so as to minimize the chance of you "getting into argy-bargy in the future and missing your flight". He also gave me his name and said that in the event of any difficulties it would be fine to say that I had discussed the matter with him and what the conclusion was.
Finally he suggested that I take extra care to avoid triggering the WTMD while acknowledging that there is still the potential for random selection.
Finally he suggested that I take extra care to avoid triggering the WTMD while acknowledging that there is still the potential for random selection.
^ to Supervisor #2.
Jan 28, 2014, 12:04 am
#617
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,766
Following on from my experience above I completed a feedback form on the Edinburgh airport website pointing out the positives and negatives of my experience. I received a call today from Supervisor #2 thanking me for my feedback. He confirmed that I have a right to opt out of a body scan subject to a private search. He also said that there were five other staff members of his rank, any of whom could be on duty depending on shift patterns, and he would remind them of the rules as and when he saw them so as to minimize the chance of you "getting into argy-bargy in the future and missing your flight". He also gave me his name and said that in the event of any difficulties it would be fine to say that I had discussed the matter with him and what the conclusion was.
Finally he suggested that I take extra care to avoid triggering the WTMD while acknowledging that there is still the potential for random selection.
Finally he suggested that I take extra care to avoid triggering the WTMD while acknowledging that there is still the potential for random selection.
There were so many things wrong in the way you were treated at the checkpoint; I'm curious as to whether, in the follow-up, you were told whether the following were mistakes or whether some of them are still part of the "rules".
Supervisor #1 asked me why I didn't want to get in the scanner.
... during which he sought to show me the image which the scanner would produce.
He also said two or three times that the process would involve a full hand search of my person and all my carry-on items and take 15 minutes and asked me when my flight was leaving.
... he threatened me with being denied boarding: "unless you're six months pregnant or have a medical condition you would normally be told you cannae fly today".
When supervisor #2 eventually agreed that I could have the alternative search process, he demanded my "travel documents" to which I gave him my boarding pass. He noted down my name and flight number on a form which he informed me would be sent to the Department for Transport.
Following this was a full search of my carry-on and the contents of my trays, all the way down to unzipping the lining of my case.
He asked for my occupation, and I gave a relatively vague answer.
I was then asked to, and did, sign a consent form to the private search which I had just had
... during which he sought to show me the image which the scanner would produce.
He also said two or three times that the process would involve a full hand search of my person and all my carry-on items and take 15 minutes and asked me when my flight was leaving.
... he threatened me with being denied boarding: "unless you're six months pregnant or have a medical condition you would normally be told you cannae fly today".
When supervisor #2 eventually agreed that I could have the alternative search process, he demanded my "travel documents" to which I gave him my boarding pass. He noted down my name and flight number on a form which he informed me would be sent to the Department for Transport.
Following this was a full search of my carry-on and the contents of my trays, all the way down to unzipping the lining of my case.
He asked for my occupation, and I gave a relatively vague answer.
I was then asked to, and did, sign a consent form to the private search which I had just had
If you have further details, it would be much appreciated.
Jan 28, 2014, 2:48 am
#618
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: From ORK, live LCY
Programs: BA Silver, EI Silver, HH Gold, BW Gold, ABP, Seigneur des Horaires des Mucci
Posts: 14,205
I have no idea what exactly is being recorded in terms of data, but after my next opt-out I will probably send a data protection act request to the DfT requiring them to disclose all information they hold about me and the reason(s) for retaining it, and we'll see where that goes.
The occupation question came up in the course of conversation and I am minded to consider the consent form matter an oversight in the absence of any indication to the contrary. I don't know whether the bag search was (a) SOP (b) retaliation or (c) attached to the fact that I, while uncleared, had access to my bags, which were cleared. (I carried my trays to the private room.)
BTW it's not my country. I'm Irish and our one and only NOS (at DUB) was torn out last year because it was causing the lines to back up. I'm afraid I shall not be returning to yours (assuming SYD represents your nationality) due primarily to its no opt-out policy (with a side reason of the incredibly rude grunts at the exits to many shops demanding to search your bag).
What gets me most is Supervisor #2 saying that staff are allowed to opt out with a normal hand search. He didn't expand on why, just said "most of them love it [the NOS] because it's so much faster".
The occupation question came up in the course of conversation and I am minded to consider the consent form matter an oversight in the absence of any indication to the contrary. I don't know whether the bag search was (a) SOP (b) retaliation or (c) attached to the fact that I, while uncleared, had access to my bags, which were cleared. (I carried my trays to the private room.)
BTW it's not my country. I'm Irish and our one and only NOS (at DUB) was torn out last year because it was causing the lines to back up. I'm afraid I shall not be returning to yours (assuming SYD represents your nationality) due primarily to its no opt-out policy (with a side reason of the incredibly rude grunts at the exits to many shops demanding to search your bag).
What gets me most is Supervisor #2 saying that staff are allowed to opt out with a normal hand search. He didn't expand on why, just said "most of them love it [the NOS] because it's so much faster".
Jan 28, 2014, 10:59 pm
#619
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,766
I have no idea what exactly is being recorded in terms of data, but after my next opt-out I will probably send a data protection act request to the DfT requiring them to disclose all information they hold about me and the reason(s) for retaining it, and we'll see where that goes.
The occupation question came up in the course of conversation and I am minded to consider the consent form matter an oversight in the absence of any indication to the contrary. I don't know whether the bag search was (a) SOP (b) retaliation or (c) attached to the fact that I, while uncleared, had access to my bags, which were cleared. (I carried my trays to the private room.)
The occupation question came up in the course of conversation and I am minded to consider the consent form matter an oversight in the absence of any indication to the contrary. I don't know whether the bag search was (a) SOP (b) retaliation or (c) attached to the fact that I, while uncleared, had access to my bags, which were cleared. (I carried my trays to the private room.)
BTW it's not my country. I'm Irish and our one and only NOS (at DUB) was torn out last year because it was causing the lines to back up. I'm afraid I shall not be returning to yours (assuming SYD represents your nationality) due primarily to its no opt-out policy (with a side reason of the incredibly rude grunts at the exits to many shops demanding to search your bag).
Feb 1, 2014, 1:24 am
#620
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: From ORK, live LCY
Programs: BA Silver, EI Silver, HH Gold, BW Gold, ABP, Seigneur des Horaires des Mucci
Posts: 14,205
LGW goes NOS-crazy, raises the stakes for passengers
I'm currently airside in LGW south terminal where they have become L3's star customers. Every lane but one at the general checkpoint was equipped with a ProVision or ProVision 2 MMW scanner behind the WTMD. The safe lane, number 5, had a hugely backed-up line, presumably of people who were familiar with the arrangements, and a clerk was shooing people away from it.
Additionally, the location of the MMW made it almost impossible to see your stuff between being selected and standing in the "penalty box" and being scanned. And all the scannings I saw while at the checkpoint (I thankfully avoided having to opt out) were giving anomalies, generally around the midriff and consistent with baggy clothing.
I don't have fast track access with the airline I'm flying today but I did get a glance at the fast track area, which is WTMD only at this point in time. I can't advise on the family lane, as it is walled off from the main checkpoint.
This is an airport I will be most keen to avoid in future unless I can get fast track.
Additionally, the location of the MMW made it almost impossible to see your stuff between being selected and standing in the "penalty box" and being scanned. And all the scannings I saw while at the checkpoint (I thankfully avoided having to opt out) were giving anomalies, generally around the midriff and consistent with baggy clothing.
I don't have fast track access with the airline I'm flying today but I did get a glance at the fast track area, which is WTMD only at this point in time. I can't advise on the family lane, as it is walled off from the main checkpoint.
This is an airport I will be most keen to avoid in future unless I can get fast track.
Feb 1, 2014, 3:45 am
#621
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: From ORK, live LCY
Programs: BA Silver, EI Silver, HH Gold, BW Gold, ABP, Seigneur des Horaires des Mucci
Posts: 14,205
After a bit more thinking on this one, I am not sure what bothers me most:
- The number of people happily assuming the surrender position
- The clerk stopping people from joining the WTMD-only lane
- The layout of the WTMD and the MMW - the MMW was several feet back and to the left of the WTMD but still between the two X-rays. A little reconfiguring of barriers and ropes and boom, MMW is primary.
- The fact that Mrs. stifle was prepared to get in the NOS if prompted (she wasn't)
Feb 1, 2014, 3:57 am
#622
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NW London and NW Sydney
Programs: BA Diamond, Hilton Bronze, A3 Diamond, IHG *G
Posts: 6,343
I'm currently airside in LGW south terminal where they have become L3's star customers. Every lane but one at the general checkpoint was equipped with a ProVision or ProVision 2 MMW scanner behind the WTMD. The safe lane, number 5, had a hugely backed-up line, presumably of people who were familiar with the arrangements, and a clerk was shooing people away from it.
I have never set off the WTMD once I stopped being lazy, so if that's true then I might as well avoid lane 5.
Feb 1, 2014, 4:36 am
#623
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: From ORK, live LCY
Programs: BA Silver, EI Silver, HH Gold, BW Gold, ABP, Seigneur des Horaires des Mucci
Posts: 14,205
I can't say definitely, but nobody who didn't beep the metal detector got sent to the NOS while I was watching. However UK metal detectors are set to randomly beep with a small probability every time someone goes through (my empirical estimate of probability is 15%) so just divesting yourself of metal does not keep you safe.
It was between 5-10 minutes to get through the checkpoint.
It was between 5-10 minutes to get through the checkpoint.
Feb 3, 2014, 10:48 am
#624
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sussex, England
Posts: 59
I divested myself of every bit of metal and got through the WTMD without it bleeping. One of my fellow travellers followed me though and I saw "QUOT" light up on the metal detector as it bleeped when he went through it, whereupon he was shepherded to the MMW scanner. I said "You can opt out", but he just shrugged (he's a very nervous flyer as it is so probably didn't want any extra argy-bargy). Two of the other fellow travellers also went through a scanner but in other lanes. There were queues of people waiting to go through every scanner (post-WTMD), so from this I deduct that the WTMD "QUOT" quota is set to a much larger proportion than has been suggested as the case up until recently.
Whilst overseas, I commented to one of my fellow travellers about it now being possible at last since late November to opt out in the UK after for a few years being the only country in the western world to force you through these things if selected and obliging you to forgo your flight if you refuse to be scanned. Her reply was "I don't mind being scanned because I have nothing to hide". [Doh!!]. As if I or anyone else not wishing to be exposed to these waves HAS got something to "hide", or for whatever other reason they might have to exercise their right to decline being zapped.
I note with disgust that although Gatwick airport have updated their "security scanners" leaflet as of January 2014 to remove the reference to being barred from flying, and removing "Can I opt out?" -- "No." from the FAQs, they STILL include this:
Are children exempt?
No. The Government directive authorising the use of security scanners by airports does not exempt children because this would undermine the effectiveness of these new security measures.
Source: http://www.gatwickairport.com/Docume...et_Jan2014.pdfNo. The Government directive authorising the use of security scanners by airports does not exempt children because this would undermine the effectiveness of these new security measures.
This is plainly wrong. Children ARE exempt, as is everyone else who does not wish to submit to this.
The entire handling of the body scanners issue over the past few years by both the UK government (Department for Transport) and UK airport operators, with their twisted, contradictory, illogical statements and their obfuscation of the new post-November 2013 situation is utterly appalling and stinks to high heaven. My future tactic now will be to arrive at an airport with an extra hour to spare and to pack minimal hand luggage, and to have a prepared set of non-confrontational things to say to the security people. I may also write to the Department for Transport and ask them to provide written confirmation on letterheaded paper that I can show to security people if they get awkward. Your experience in Edinburgh airport, stifle, was grotesque.
Feb 3, 2014, 11:37 am
#625
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: From ORK, live LCY
Programs: BA Silver, EI Silver, HH Gold, BW Gold, ABP, Seigneur des Horaires des Mucci
Posts: 14,205
Unfortunately, there is nowhere near enough people who care about this. But I'm running for my local council this year and if successful will try to increase awareness.
Feb 4, 2014, 5:18 am
#626
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sussex, England
Posts: 59
Airports still saying "No scan, no fly"
As further evidence of the shoddiness of this entire body scanner policy, three major UK airports are still saying "No scan, no fly" on their websites, more than two months since the change in the government's stance:
Edinburgh
Glasgow
Stansted
Meanwhile, London City airport goes into further detail:
"Experience has shown low body scan refusal rates from passengers"
vs
Coercion to comply with scan or else forgo your flight (i.e. practically no choice)
So was no scan, no fly enacted because of the dire security requirement (as previously trumpeted by the govt) or because the airports couldn't be arsed to deal with manual searches? And has the government given "low passenger refusal rates" as the reason for revoking it, rather than pressure from the European Commission?
Given my experience the other week (two posts above this one) my travelling companions were well and truly conditioned like sheep to comply with the scan without question after several years of no opt-out being allowed.
Edinburgh
Glasgow
Stansted
Meanwhile, London City airport goes into further detail:
Is there an alternative screening method?
When security scanners were originally introduced in 2010, the Department for Transport (DTF) Decided no alternative screening method would not be offered to passengers selected to be screened by a security scanner: the so called ‘No scan, No Fly’ policy. This decision was made on operational and security grounds.
However, operational experience of security scanners has shown low refusal rates from passengers. This means that offering an alternative screening method, previously considered too great a burden on airports, now appears viable.
The alternative screening method will be at least a private search (an enhanced hand-search in private which may involve the loosening and/or removal of clothing). The DFT considers that this alternative offers a comparative security assurance to passengers as being screened by a security scanner.
There are so many contradictions in the whole policy up to now.When security scanners were originally introduced in 2010, the Department for Transport (DTF) Decided no alternative screening method would not be offered to passengers selected to be screened by a security scanner: the so called ‘No scan, No Fly’ policy. This decision was made on operational and security grounds.
However, operational experience of security scanners has shown low refusal rates from passengers. This means that offering an alternative screening method, previously considered too great a burden on airports, now appears viable.
The alternative screening method will be at least a private search (an enhanced hand-search in private which may involve the loosening and/or removal of clothing). The DFT considers that this alternative offers a comparative security assurance to passengers as being screened by a security scanner.
"Security risk to UK too great to allow opt-outs"
vs
London Luton, the UK's fifth busiest airport never having had scanners
vs
London Luton, the UK's fifth busiest airport never having had scanners
"Experience has shown low body scan refusal rates from passengers"
vs
Coercion to comply with scan or else forgo your flight (i.e. practically no choice)
So was no scan, no fly enacted because of the dire security requirement (as previously trumpeted by the govt) or because the airports couldn't be arsed to deal with manual searches? And has the government given "low passenger refusal rates" as the reason for revoking it, rather than pressure from the European Commission?
Given my experience the other week (two posts above this one) my travelling companions were well and truly conditioned like sheep to comply with the scan without question after several years of no opt-out being allowed.
Feb 8, 2014, 6:50 am
#627
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: From ORK, live LCY
Programs: BA Silver, EI Silver, HH Gold, BW Gold, ABP, Seigneur des Horaires des Mucci
Posts: 14,205
I have every reason to believe that the change is driven by EU compliance. There are still a few remaining ways of getting airside at LHR without having had any chance of getting selected for the NOS. If they were serious and not just trying to be seen to do something, these would be gone.
Feb 13, 2014, 4:58 am
#628
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: From ORK, live LCY
Programs: BA Silver, EI Silver, HH Gold, BW Gold, ABP, Seigneur des Horaires des Mucci
Posts: 14,205
Am riding my luck on my weekly visits to EDI as only the lanes with WTMD and NOS have been operating when I've been going through, but I have not set off the WTMD again. I do have some dialogue prepared for the supervisor such as a reply to "it's perfectly safe": "then why are airport staff exempt?"
Feb 19, 2014, 11:43 am
#629
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: From ORK, live LCY
Programs: BA Silver, EI Silver, HH Gold, BW Gold, ABP, Seigneur des Horaires des Mucci
Posts: 14,205
stifle's EDI experiences part 10
Short story for today: SDOO using lane 4. Nice and easy. Got a look at the Smiths eqo MMW machine that's no longer in use behind lane 4. Tiny little thing but you have to turn around while getting your digital strip search.
Feb 23, 2014, 12:09 pm
#630
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 80
GLA update
Have been throught GLA a few times over the past few weeks and have managed to avoid the scanner easily by picking the other lane in use. So far (touch wood), I have never seen them pick out anyone from this lane to go through the scanner, but that may be the case when I am not there.
Anyone been through MAN lately? Hoping someone can give me the heads up as to what the situation is there (in particular T3).
Anyone been through MAN lately? Hoping someone can give me the heads up as to what the situation is there (in particular T3).