Airport security?

[happyjack]

Just a couple of stories for you concerning airport security:

'Was flying from Sydney to Brisbane on wednesday with no checked in baggage however as I was staying the night I was carrying toiletries in a carry on bag. When I got to security I could not find any clear plastic bags. When I asked the security officer he said "nah mate, this is a domestic flight, only on internationals."

Ummmm? I thought more than 100ml of fluid was a significant security and safety risk?:confused: But apparently only on overwater flights out of OZ?:rolleyes: Domestic flights are apparently immune to terrorist attacks!

Had something similar at LHR recently when I had a conversation with security about why one row were required to remove shoes yet another was not. I was told "it is random." Sorry but I am lost again. If shoes are a risk then how can a security policy be enforced at random. EVERYONE must be checked. If they are not a risk stop wasting my time.

It also transpired that getting bleeped and subsequently hand searched is also random.

This is not security. This is just trying to show that something has changed.
A waste of everyones time and money and acheiving zero I think.:= Oh except pissing everyone off!:ok:

[Globaliser]

Had something similar at LHR recently when I had a conversation with security about why one row were required to remove shoes yet another was not. I was told "it is random." Sorry but I am lost again. If shoes are a risk then how can a security policy be enforced at random. EVERYONE must be checked. If they are not a risk stop wasting my time.Not "random", as I understand it, but a proportion of people must have their shoes checked - something like one in four. The London airports seem to do this by making one queue in four a "shoes off" queue. The idea is that you almost always can't pick for yourself whether to be in a "shoes off" queue, so you will never be able to eliminate the substantial chance that you will have to have your shoes screened. That's enough to deter a potential attacker from trying this method, which is therefore enough security.

[call100]

The problem will occur when 4 different attackers join 4 different lines:ugh:....Lets face it. Security can only diminish the risk not ever eliminate it. It is now a fact of life when flying.
Complaining about it all will not change anything.....:suspect:

[radeng]

It's all a joke. The other week, going through Christchurch (NZ), Mrs Radeng got called over. Subsequent chat with the security woman revealed that she thougt it a joke that it was done randomly, and agreed profiling was far more accurate if done right. She even said that that airport security is a joke - and that's one of your minimum wage per hour employees!

Going throuh Bangkok, they went to town over my insulin. Five capsules of 3 mL. How many did I have, who was my doctor, how much did I take each day, what was my flight number, what was my passport number, why did I take it (Why do they bloody well think I inject myself with the damn stuff?).....No interest in steroids or prescription drugs containing codeine.

Stupidity unleashed.....

[Globaliser]

The problem will occur when 4 different attackers join 4 different linesEr, no.

First, it's pretty difficult to find four different attackers.

Second, when one gets caught with bombs or whatever in his shoes, the whole place shuts down and doesn't get going again without an increased level of security. Not much good for the other three.

Therefore the operation doesn't get launched at all.

[Moira]

Think it's stupid because it's not 100% foolproof?

In that case, let's also get rid of alcohol tests, speeding checks, food and drug safety tests, car safety test, quality control procedures in factories, and any other control procedure you can think of. You might even consider not taking regular medical checkups any more.

You just can't control everything for the full 100%, ever.
That doesn't mean that control procedures (in any sector) are pointless.

[radeng]

> Think it's stupid because it's not 100% foolproof? <

Depends how close to 100%.

Suppose it was 10% effective. Would that not be stupid?

Suppose it was 99%. That wouldn't be stupid.

Now look at a cost benefit analysis. Profiling would almost certainly have a better chance of catching problems for a lot less cost.

The present system has major holes in it that I, as SLF, can see. And although they are obvious to me, I won't be saying what they are here. Or how easy it would be to disrupt ATC - admittedly, for a relatively short period.

[call100]

Globaliser Er, no.

First, it's pretty difficult to find four different attackers.

How the hell can you make a statement like that??? Obviously it isn't...

Security is only risk management. It will never be 100%

[Globaliser]

Suppose it was 10% effective. Would that not be stupid?A 10% effectiveness rate against a particular threat is fine if it is enough to stop 100% of attacks.

[radeng]

Globaliser,

It depends on how you define effctiveness. If it stopped 10% of attacks, but 100% of one kind of attack, that is not effective by my definition.

[bandit2106]

Went through EMA on 1/9. Security spent ages looking at my backpack on the scanner. Put it on the floor, picked it up and down a few times, always by the fastener, never the straps...then I got the 20 questions treatment. Pulled out my socks one by one, and all because the operative could not recognise a plastic dried goods jar containing Coffeemate powder. The supervisor was called and the offending jar was held up for examination. I was chastised..."It might have been petrol" . X-rayed it again....just to be certain. At this point I offered to make the operative a coffee, to prove my point.
While all this was happening my OH forgot to take out his toiletries from his bag and the operative failed to spot them on the x-ray, and I heard from another passenger on the same flight who forgot to take out a half litre of the deadly H20 from their bag, they missed that as well.
My jar of Coffeemate is very well travelled, but it's never been considered a security threat at an airport before.
Still, the world is a safer place now the threat from powdered coffee whitenener is neutralised.

[Final 3 Greens]

Bandit

It is is any consolation, I got told at STN that they didn't like masking tape and didn't allow any stronger tape in hand luggage.

Conclusion - it was perfectly legit to take masking tape, as the supervisor made very clear when he came across :ok:

[Globaliser]

It depends on how you define effctiveness. If it stopped 10% of attacks, but 100% of one kind of attack, that is not effective by my definition.True - I would entirely agree with you on that.

But if a 10% detection rate of one attack method is enough to prevent (ie deter) 100% of attacks by that attack method, then that detection rate must be "effective" by the standards of everyone except the most absolutist pedant.