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!
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.
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???
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.
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.
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...
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...
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?
....had some person just reported it, could easily have been covered up without any exposure.
I recently wandered into the wrong area at a US airport and discovered a VERY serious breach of security. It was the early hours with no security present. I have just recieved a reply from the TSA, who have solved the problem........ In future crews will be escorted from the aircraft so that they don't go into the wrong area.
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.
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.
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............."
'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 ?
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!
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.