"MPs warn over air security checks"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 789
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"MPs warn over air security checks"
"Heightened security checks at airports could create a potential new target for terrorists, MPs have warned.
A report by the Commons transport select committee said queues of hundreds of passengers in cramped spaces could become a security hazard.
The committee recommended that reducing queues at security and speeding up check-in times should be a priority.
The Department for Transport (DfT) said baggage security rules introduced last August met "a very real threat".
The regulations resulted in disruption and delays and, although the situation has improved, passengers still face longer queues and increased waiting times."
Continued at BBC News online
A report by the Commons transport select committee said queues of hundreds of passengers in cramped spaces could become a security hazard.
The committee recommended that reducing queues at security and speeding up check-in times should be a priority.
The Department for Transport (DfT) said baggage security rules introduced last August met "a very real threat".
The regulations resulted in disruption and delays and, although the situation has improved, passengers still face longer queues and increased waiting times."
Continued at BBC News online
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Vancouver, BC.
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC's article includes:
The committee heard from security experts that the resulting queues presented a significant security threat.
Prof Alan Hatcher, principal of the International School for Security and Explosives Education, said that with bags not being searched when people entered a terminal he was concerned that queues of hundreds of people were effectively creating new targets.
The BBC report doesn't seem to me to get to the heart of the issue. As I read this, the issue is about reducing the risk by having the first level of bag and passenger screening at the terminal entrance, as is done in many countries. The risk of greater numbers of casualties is reduced as the checks at the terminal entrance tend not to have such concentrations of people in one place as are found in check-in and screening areas inside the terminal.
In the context of the Glasgow attack, the above is understandable, however, just how far does society go with the issue of security? Do we extend this thinking to the underground, football matches- where do we stop?
The climate of fear these reports generate is perhaps worse than the risk itself.
The committee heard from security experts that the resulting queues presented a significant security threat.
Prof Alan Hatcher, principal of the International School for Security and Explosives Education, said that with bags not being searched when people entered a terminal he was concerned that queues of hundreds of people were effectively creating new targets.
The BBC report doesn't seem to me to get to the heart of the issue. As I read this, the issue is about reducing the risk by having the first level of bag and passenger screening at the terminal entrance, as is done in many countries. The risk of greater numbers of casualties is reduced as the checks at the terminal entrance tend not to have such concentrations of people in one place as are found in check-in and screening areas inside the terminal.
In the context of the Glasgow attack, the above is understandable, however, just how far does society go with the issue of security? Do we extend this thinking to the underground, football matches- where do we stop?
The climate of fear these reports generate is perhaps worse than the risk itself.
Last edited by no sig; 26th Jul 2007 at 10:51.
First intelligent thing about airport security I've heard from MPs for a long time. No, make that EVER! Whilst they're at it, how about the new set-down and pick-up areas such as BHX. Detonate a device in the middle of that pile up of vehicles and it would cause just as much - if not more - death, injury and damage as crashing a car into the entrance of the terminal.
How many times do we have to make these same points.
1. It takes me no longer to get checked at security than it did 5 or 10 years ago - about 30 seconds (actually add a few seconds because I have to take the laptop out of its bag now).
2. All the rest of the squandered time, all of it, is spent queueing, when I am not getting checked at all.
3. The queueing is because insufficient checking staff have been provided. Can nobody see this ?
4. Time and again the "cure" proposed is to invest in more security stations at great cost, when the present number, even at peak times, are not fully manned, so what is the point of providing extra stations ? A recent example at Heathrow T1 Domestic : 6 security stations, only one manned, 25-minute queue at a "quiet" late evening time.
5. Long queues at check-in are again nothing to do with security and all to do with minimising costs by having a minimal number of staff on duty.
1. It takes me no longer to get checked at security than it did 5 or 10 years ago - about 30 seconds (actually add a few seconds because I have to take the laptop out of its bag now).
2. All the rest of the squandered time, all of it, is spent queueing, when I am not getting checked at all.
3. The queueing is because insufficient checking staff have been provided. Can nobody see this ?
4. Time and again the "cure" proposed is to invest in more security stations at great cost, when the present number, even at peak times, are not fully manned, so what is the point of providing extra stations ? A recent example at Heathrow T1 Domestic : 6 security stations, only one manned, 25-minute queue at a "quiet" late evening time.
5. Long queues at check-in are again nothing to do with security and all to do with minimising costs by having a minimal number of staff on duty.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Nr Salisbury UK
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sense the fixation on airports may well be misplaced. The point is any large gathering of people, with a corresponding low level of security, are vulnerable. This will not have been missed by AQ (and others) who will seek other, softer, targets. You may recall the IRA in the 70's....
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Grand Com f'Ort
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps they've been reading PPRuNE...
This was posted on another thread...
This was posted on another thread...
I stood several days ago in the check-in queues at Terminal 3 at Manchester hysterically watching the security staff removing small liquids from a group of children under 10 years of age. The queue snaked its way back for as far as the eye could see and the mayhem ensured that departures were being delayed by upto an hour.
It dawned upon me that if anyone wished to carry out an aviation related attack on a huge scale without even boarding an aircraft, all they need do was detonate a device in the packed concourse waiting to go through security. Passengers are not screened before they go into the terminal and can take anything they want into such congested areas.
It dawned upon me that if anyone wished to carry out an aviation related attack on a huge scale without even boarding an aircraft, all they need do was detonate a device in the packed concourse waiting to go through security. Passengers are not screened before they go into the terminal and can take anything they want into such congested areas.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SHROPSHIRE UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And at John LENNON Liverpool
They have a new money making scam.
They have opened a new "Fast Lane" through security which passengers can use for payment of a mere £2.
Unfortuneltely (or perhaps by design) they have reserved two scanning lines, equipment and staff to cater for this new service. This means the non fast queue lane now has only two scanners insted of four and is now twice as long. Queues have been known to extend through the shopping mall and down the stairs.
So for a 30 minute flight to BELFAST you now need to arrive two hours before ie 30 minutes to check in hold luggage, and then queue for an hour through security.
Its a farce, so eventually most people will pay the £2 rather than risk missing their flight. But the queues are massive prior to the security check out.
They have opened a new "Fast Lane" through security which passengers can use for payment of a mere £2.
Unfortuneltely (or perhaps by design) they have reserved two scanning lines, equipment and staff to cater for this new service. This means the non fast queue lane now has only two scanners insted of four and is now twice as long. Queues have been known to extend through the shopping mall and down the stairs.
So for a 30 minute flight to BELFAST you now need to arrive two hours before ie 30 minutes to check in hold luggage, and then queue for an hour through security.
Its a farce, so eventually most people will pay the £2 rather than risk missing their flight. But the queues are massive prior to the security check out.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sense the fixation on airports may well be misplaced. The point is any large gathering of people, with a corresponding low level of security, are vulnerable.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Security?
So are we saying that the security people who had all the zeal of Nazi soldiers have not actually been protecting us, and may have been mindlessly following the rules?
2 years ago, thousands of people were evacuated from Gatwick airside to landside in the North Terminal, as the result of a bomb scare. The hall was completely full to the entrance doors. A terrorist's dream. Yet the authorities apparently thought that this was safe.
After Glasgow, they started batching people in buses. Haven't they seen the news of blown-up buses in Israel?
The only answer is to increase capacity, reduce batching and queueing, and stop politicians from taking knee-jerk reactions in areas that are beyond their comprehension.
Exactly what is the liquid explosive that they couldn't detect before these silly measures, but that can be fabricated/mixed on board a plane? Ask any chemist what the liquid explosive is - and don't say silly answers like nitroglycerine (unsuitable), or acetone,or H2O2. I haven't met a chemist who cold tell me what that liquid would be.
They could solve this major bottleneck by stopping the silly checks for liquids by simply getting, say, 4 PhD chemists, and getting them to try to manufacture a bomb in aircraft conditions. When they fail, we can lift the restrictions. Most reports I've read say that they could make TATP, but this is a solid, and the chances of making it and sucessfully damaging the airframe are negligible.
So, let's start a campaign! Repeat , after me,
What are the liquid explosives?
What are the liquid explosives?
What are the liquid explosives?
Everybody join in now.
Also, let's not forget that 9/11, prior to which we were all apparently dreaming, was a relatively unsophisticated attack involving knives - not some over-elaborate scheme which involves ever more expensive machinery to detect it.
Wake up, everybody, and don't let the insecurity industry ruin our lives.
2 years ago, thousands of people were evacuated from Gatwick airside to landside in the North Terminal, as the result of a bomb scare. The hall was completely full to the entrance doors. A terrorist's dream. Yet the authorities apparently thought that this was safe.
After Glasgow, they started batching people in buses. Haven't they seen the news of blown-up buses in Israel?
The only answer is to increase capacity, reduce batching and queueing, and stop politicians from taking knee-jerk reactions in areas that are beyond their comprehension.
Exactly what is the liquid explosive that they couldn't detect before these silly measures, but that can be fabricated/mixed on board a plane? Ask any chemist what the liquid explosive is - and don't say silly answers like nitroglycerine (unsuitable), or acetone,or H2O2. I haven't met a chemist who cold tell me what that liquid would be.
They could solve this major bottleneck by stopping the silly checks for liquids by simply getting, say, 4 PhD chemists, and getting them to try to manufacture a bomb in aircraft conditions. When they fail, we can lift the restrictions. Most reports I've read say that they could make TATP, but this is a solid, and the chances of making it and sucessfully damaging the airframe are negligible.
So, let's start a campaign! Repeat , after me,
What are the liquid explosives?
What are the liquid explosives?
What are the liquid explosives?
Everybody join in now.
Also, let's not forget that 9/11, prior to which we were all apparently dreaming, was a relatively unsophisticated attack involving knives - not some over-elaborate scheme which involves ever more expensive machinery to detect it.
Wake up, everybody, and don't let the insecurity industry ruin our lives.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 800
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its just the government trying to show they are actually doing something, when really they dont know what to do!
After 9/11 - heightened security, after liquid scares - liquid restrcitions, after glasgow/london - restricted drop off points.
Whatever the terrorists come up with next, then there will be action taken on that.
With all the emphasis on Aviation, it wont take a genius to come up with another plan, train stations, major concerts (EG the Diana concert wouldve been a right kick in the teeth from the terrorists!) football matches, the rugby world cup. Devastation, on a greater scale than airports.
The country is falling to its feet. Airports wont pay for more security and handling agents are being bled dry and cant provide more checkin staff, because the airlines are reducing costs so much.
And Government subsidy would just means more taxes anyway!
After 9/11 - heightened security, after liquid scares - liquid restrcitions, after glasgow/london - restricted drop off points.
Whatever the terrorists come up with next, then there will be action taken on that.
With all the emphasis on Aviation, it wont take a genius to come up with another plan, train stations, major concerts (EG the Diana concert wouldve been a right kick in the teeth from the terrorists!) football matches, the rugby world cup. Devastation, on a greater scale than airports.
The country is falling to its feet. Airports wont pay for more security and handling agents are being bled dry and cant provide more checkin staff, because the airlines are reducing costs so much.
And Government subsidy would just means more taxes anyway!
