View Full Version : LHR Security: SCARY AGAIN!


one four sick
3rd Dec 2004, 09:50
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,,30000-1162666,00.html



eal401
3rd Dec 2004, 10:01
While most will dismiss this as pointless scaremonging, it is worrying that someone can still do this so easily.

panda-k-bear
3rd Dec 2004, 10:07
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.

one four sick
3rd Dec 2004, 10:18
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???

ou Trek dronkie
3rd Dec 2004, 10:24
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

maxy101
3rd Dec 2004, 10:38
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.

1DC
3rd Dec 2004, 11:59
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...

The African Dude
3rd Dec 2004, 12:04
From the public viewing platform on top of Terminal 2 he found a gap in razorwire and slipped through.

Eh? Sorry for being pedantic but I thought that was closed. Is this real?! :suspect:

panda-k-bear
3rd Dec 2004, 12:21
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:ouch: BAA

MAX
3rd Dec 2004, 13:41
Will this journo be prosecuted? Whats to stop potential terrorists claiming to be journo's, if they are caught, and then slipping away?

MAX:cool:

Snigs
3rd Dec 2004, 13:42
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?

Captain Airclues
3rd Dec 2004, 13:42
....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.

Airclues

one four sick
3rd Dec 2004, 13:55
MAX


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.

PAXboy
3rd Dec 2004, 14:07
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.

Charlie32
3rd Dec 2004, 14:15
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.

Clear_Prop
3rd Dec 2004, 14:26
Sheesh! :rolleyes:

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! :confused:

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. ;)

Jerricho
3rd Dec 2004, 15:21
*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............."

HZ123
3rd Dec 2004, 17:11
'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 ?

runawayedge
3rd Dec 2004, 17:44
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!

HZ123
3rd Dec 2004, 17:55
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.

MAX
3rd Dec 2004, 18:22
One Four Sick,

Ah yes but how strict is the newspapers background check of the journo? If you see what I mean.

MAX:cool:

Avman
3rd Dec 2004, 20:11
:zzz: I've said it before and I'll say it again:

You will never ever achieve 100% security. There will always be a way. Most security is purely cosmetic and would never deter a determined terrorist attack, especially if it is of the suicide type. Only the average nutter might be deterred by security measures.

farnboroughspotter
3rd Dec 2004, 22:39
as somebody who is regually a LHR/LGW spotter and who regually works airside at both security is a bit of a joke. Im a engineer and regually carry a tool case through security with little but x ray examination. I could easily pass a very sharp object to a pax via a drop off point.
Also short of putting a 15ft concrete wall round all airports the permiter fence is easily cut through and a 2 min sprint across the runways in the dark will give you easy acess to many airliners. Not to mention standing somehwre like Richmond or Windsor with a shoulder launched SAM.
There seems to be a great deal of security aimed at pax but this is not the weak point.

Evil J
4th Dec 2004, 10:41
I would like to see BAA start making people check in 8 hours before their flight so that "security" screening can take place(!)...when people ask why so draconian...blame Sky News!!

:= :=

pug munter
4th Dec 2004, 21:07
Is this the same Sky News which was strongly criticised for making up a montage of old shots about the firing of a missile from a ship during the start of the Iraq conflict?

The reporter was "sacked" and procedures "tightened".

mutt
6th Dec 2004, 03:37
Airclues...

In future crews will be escorted from the aircraft so that they don't go into the wrong area.

Love the solution! It really appears that they understood the problem :):):):)

Mutt.

DarkStar
10th Dec 2004, 08:09
As HZ123 states, BA used to have a team who I tried to highlight access control issues within the company. Where are they now?