LHR Security: SCARY AGAIN!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR Security: SCARY AGAIN!
BA and BAA feature strongly in this new security blunder at LHR.
It was shown this morning on SKY News that one of their reporters was able to go airside and walk around parked aircraft with a broom in his hand.
As long as the crews are searched well we're ok, NOT!
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...162666,00.html
It was shown this morning on SKY News that one of their reporters was able to go airside and walk around parked aircraft with a broom in his hand.
As long as the crews are searched well we're ok, NOT!
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...162666,00.html
Bear Behind
Saw the same report this morning. Personally I'm torn as to whether this is a good thing or a bad thing.
On the bad side, it is done purely to scare people and it does make public holes that others with more dubious motives could exploit.
On the flip side of the coin it does prompt BAA to do something about it which, had some person just reported it, could easily have been covered up without any exposure. In that case maybe nothing would have been done.
6 of one and half a dozen of the other.
On the bad side, it is done purely to scare people and it does make public holes that others with more dubious motives could exploit.
On the flip side of the coin it does prompt BAA to do something about it which, had some person just reported it, could easily have been covered up without any exposure. In that case maybe nothing would have been done.
6 of one and half a dozen of the other.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
panda-k-bear
It could have been dealt with quietly, of course.
BUT by bringing it out in to the "open" the pressure multiplies on those responsible to try to attempt to do something about this.
I think it's good to expose these things as we crew get thrashed daily by security personnel thinking they are doing a worthwile job touching us up, when the REAL security issues are much more difficult a task to carry out!
Can they really be bothered???
It could have been dealt with quietly, of course.
BUT by bringing it out in to the "open" the pressure multiplies on those responsible to try to attempt to do something about this.
I think it's good to expose these things as we crew get thrashed daily by security personnel thinking they are doing a worthwile job touching us up, when the REAL security issues are much more difficult a task to carry out!
Can they really be bothered???
Guest
Posts: n/a
Security at airports
On a similar topic, a pistol was let through the net yesterday at Milan Linate. It was a security check, which failed, or passed, depending on your viewpoint. Having observed the "security" procedures at LIXX airports, ir is no surprise. The person doesn't work at that job any more and I am sure the replacement will be more attentive, for a while at least.
Glad it's not my job in any case.
oTd
Glad it's not my job in any case.
oTd
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Abroad
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought Mervyn Granshaw came across quite well on Sky News too ,commenting that perhaps present restrictions/ procedures were misplaced ( i.e jumpseat restrictions) and suggesting that Crew/staff have some kind of universal biometric pass. However, talking to a highly placed friend of mine, I understand that nobody in Transec is willing to stick their neck out and reverse decisions previously made , even though they themselves recognise that they are ludicrous. Just about sums up the U.K at the moment.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK EAST COAST
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting that it is a big story on Sky but isn't featuring at all on the opposition, i.e. ITV and BBC 24. I suppose if it isn't your journo it doesn't count.
I have mixed feelings about this sort of thing, if their are weaknesses they need to be probed but do we ever get the full story? Has the journo got himself employed in a job that allowed him to go where he went or was he just "joe public" trespassing and getting away with it. If it was the latter that is dangerous if the former then he needs to be taken to task for it.
The fact that it becomes big news may influence the bad guys to try it and that is the downside to these investigations...
I have mixed feelings about this sort of thing, if their are weaknesses they need to be probed but do we ever get the full story? Has the journo got himself employed in a job that allowed him to go where he went or was he just "joe public" trespassing and getting away with it. If it was the latter that is dangerous if the former then he needs to be taken to task for it.
The fact that it becomes big news may influence the bad guys to try it and that is the downside to these investigations...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the public viewing platform on top of Terminal 2 he found a gap in razorwire and slipped through.
Bear Behind
African Dude
Oh yes, quite, quite real. There's film, admittedly distorted, of him doing it.
1DC
The way it was portrayed (which doesn't mean it's the way it ACTUALLY happened, of course), it would appear that our chummy journo walked in late (on several occasions), walked into a BA office and took a BA vest then proceeded out onto the ramp without being challenged.
As was pointed out by a specialist early this morning on Sky news, though, he believed the journo must have had inside help to know WHICH office was unlocked and WHICH door to slip through, and WHERE the hole in the fence was...
Take that
BAA
Oh yes, quite, quite real. There's film, admittedly distorted, of him doing it.
1DC
The way it was portrayed (which doesn't mean it's the way it ACTUALLY happened, of course), it would appear that our chummy journo walked in late (on several occasions), walked into a BA office and took a BA vest then proceeded out onto the ramp without being challenged.
As was pointed out by a specialist early this morning on Sky news, though, he believed the journo must have had inside help to know WHICH office was unlocked and WHICH door to slip through, and WHERE the hole in the fence was...
Take that
BAA
PPRuNe Knight in Shining Armour
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Everywhere in the UK, but not home!
Posts: 503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't help wondering why the BAA don't employ their own "sneaks" to try and find the holes in security. Then they can do something about it without it being splashed all over the news! Or does this already happen but is inneffective?
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....had some person just reported it, could easily have been covered up without any exposure.
Airclues
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAX
Probably won't work for the terrorist as in this case and probably all the others of this sort the TV Channel or Newspaper would eventually vouch for it's employee's identity.
Will this journo be prosecuted? Whats to stop potential terrorists claiming to be journo's, if they are caught, and then slipping away?
Probably won't work for the terrorist as in this case and probably all the others of this sort the TV Channel or Newspaper would eventually vouch for it's employee's identity.
Paxing All Over The World
This is only about Sky generating 'news'. However serious this breach is, it makes no differance as to whether someone will try and do something serious. We all know that it proves present 'security' is poor and past decisions wrong but it will change nothing. Why?
1) No one has the money to make it right.
2) Making an airport secure would almost close it for business. The same goes for offices and your local Town Hall.
This is only about Sky generating \'news\'. However serious this breach is, it makes no differance as to whether someone will try and do something serious. We all know that it proves present \'security\' is poor and past decisions wrong but it will change nothing. Why?
1) No one has the money to make it right.
2) Making an airport secure would almost close it for business. The same goes for commercial offices and your local Town Hall.
1) No one has the money to make it right.
2) Making an airport secure would almost close it for business. The same goes for offices and your local Town Hall.
This is only about Sky generating \'news\'. However serious this breach is, it makes no differance as to whether someone will try and do something serious. We all know that it proves present \'security\' is poor and past decisions wrong but it will change nothing. Why?
1) No one has the money to make it right.
2) Making an airport secure would almost close it for business. The same goes for commercial offices and your local Town Hall.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the easiest ways to get onto the apron at LHR (if you really wanted to) would be to set off the fire alarm. You are then directed, not escorted, from the BA exec lounge down onto the apron at T1 under the bellies of the boeings/airbuses. OK they let you take your gin with you, but it always amuses me (and it happens with regular monotony) that not only do you now have access to the A/C, but you you are also mustering under a big tank of aviation fuel in a fire evacuation. Odd really.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sol, sector ZZ9 plural Z alpha
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sheesh! 
Well what can I say? This and recent stories of a similar nature only go together to prove one thing...
...the shocking truth!...
...Journalists are just as dangerous as Terrorists!
Perhaps we ought to gather them all together and send them all to Guantanamo Bay until we've had long enough to check them all out properly.
Well what can I say? This and recent stories of a similar nature only go together to prove one thing...
...the shocking truth!...
...Journalists are just as dangerous as Terrorists!
Perhaps we ought to gather them all together and send them all to Guantanamo Bay until we've had long enough to check them all out properly.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
*Sigh*
Here we go yet again.
Yes it's worrying, yes it's shocking, blah, blah, blah. It should be another kick up the ass for LHR (and airports everywhere) to perhaps, as Snigs suggests, take on "sneaks" to try this sort of thing BUT without it being splashed all over the news. Ok, there's the money issue involved, and it probably will never come to fruition. But I think it's a good idea.
However, what gives a journo the right to try and do these sorts of things? AND, as I have said before, what if in the process of this all the "perp journo" had actually been identified by security staff, and during his little jaunt with the broom happened to suddenly looking down the business end of a sub-machine gun or worse?
"Don't shoot!! I'm a journalist for Sky News............."
Here we go yet again.
Yes it's worrying, yes it's shocking, blah, blah, blah. It should be another kick up the ass for LHR (and airports everywhere) to perhaps, as Snigs suggests, take on "sneaks" to try this sort of thing BUT without it being splashed all over the news. Ok, there's the money issue involved, and it probably will never come to fruition. But I think it's a good idea.
However, what gives a journo the right to try and do these sorts of things? AND, as I have said before, what if in the process of this all the "perp journo" had actually been identified by security staff, and during his little jaunt with the broom happened to suddenly looking down the business end of a sub-machine gun or worse?
"Don't shoot!! I'm a journalist for Sky News............."
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Employing sneaks to find the loopholes'. BA did in fact do this a number of years ago and deployed the staff throughout the UK not being permitted to inspect overseas overtly. Their findings were unpalitable to BA senior management and to many of the UK airport authorities and were often in contrast to the tests undertaken by the then DoT Transport Inspectors. Frankly the former were able to gain access with little difficulty. However, the Uk secuity is still far superior and effective than the US and EU. Africa and the Indian sub continent do not have the financial resource.
Whatever the outcome of these failures I am sure that most readers of the thread are all to aware of the systems failings. The only safe and secure method is not to fly the aircraft. Incidents such as these will always occur and little is mentioned of the sucesses that must happen ?
Whatever the outcome of these failures I am sure that most readers of the thread are all to aware of the systems failings. The only safe and secure method is not to fly the aircraft. Incidents such as these will always occur and little is mentioned of the sucesses that must happen ?
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: thelandofnod
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What amazes me is that security IS a finance issue. Why can't EVERY airport impose a £5 secuity levy for each departing pax, loco conventional or other to pay for security. As a travelling pax I'd gladly pay it if it improved my security!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
runawayedge; The existing security levy for passengers flying in/from the UK is I believe £12 a head. You could indeed keep increasing this but you will end up having to arrive 2 hours earlier to pass through the security checks and probably find that all but staff and pax would be excluded from the terminal / airport areas. This plus Ken L's £10 control charge that he wishes to take from all vehicles coming to LHR.