Journalist takes “8 inch” knife aboard BA flight

[Half a Mexican]

Just heard this on the radio. Does anyone know more?

HaM

[Echo Zulu Yankee]

See it Here (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004312168,00.html) What a CLEVER idea!

Lets sneak a knife on an aircraft ,when we all know its illegal, so some estranged idiot in the seat next to him can grab it off the "reporter" and come up front and stab me in the neck! Great idea! lets show people it can be done shall we?

Tomorrows headlines: Pi$$ed off Pilot bashes idiot reporter round head with Jeppesen binder after journo heroically brings an AK47 on board " 'Cuz he can"

:{

[DouglasDigby]

Er, if that's a "serrated 8 inch knife" , Mrs Newton Dunn is obviously being lied to!! :E

Three inch blade maximum, although still doesn't reflect well on the security search.

[Daysleeper]

We took seats in business class of the Boeing 777, feet from the cockpit door

Which is of course now made of steel composite and is impervious to knives guns rocket launchers and cabin crew. Well 3 out of 4 isn't bad.

[Echo Zulu Yankee]

Which is of course now made of steel composite and is impervious to knives guns rocket launchers and cabin crew. Well 3 out of 4 isn't bad.

........You missed out drinks carts :E

[speed freek]

To EZY

Very nicely said mate, problem though, through the stupidity of various organizations/managers round the world, the JEP will then be classified as a weapon and confiscated.

Oh well.

Cheers.

[TDK mk2]

I carry nail scissors through BAA security on most occasions that I travel without checking in hold baggage, which is most of the time. For obvious reasons I won't say how I get it through and although the blades on them are only about an inch long (but against BAA rules) I'm pretty sure I could get a much larger blade through using the same technique (which of course I wouldn't even attempt).

So what's really the point of the current security procedures? Meaningful screening to prevent a future terrorist attack or being seen to be doing something, however fallible it can be demonstrated to be...

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Was brought on by his young son hidden in a plastic sword !!!!!!

[SOU-Bloke]

So what's really the point of the current security procedures? Meaningful screening to prevent a future terrorist attack or being seen to be doing something, however fallible it can be demonstrated to be...
No security precautions are 100% infallible, and there are ways and means of circumventing many checks and the like. The only way to prevent a future terrorist attack is to never fly. But if the world we live in wants to continue as we know it, we have to deal with 'acceptable risks'.

Security checks are partly to screen for prohibited items (obviously) and also largely as a deterrant to stop people who deliberately WANT to take things onto an aircraft, before they even try it.

Personally I get fed up of people I speak to who EXPECT Security to be 100% perfect everywhere, when anything that relies on human involvement, from the equipment design and manufacture, to operation and search procedures etc, etc, is NEVER 100%.

[er82]

Thought they were going to intoruce that x-ray machine that 'sees' through clothes and gives a decent picture of the person underneath and any potential weapons they may be carrying. Probably be a big hoo-haa about it thought because of 'invasion of privacy' - mind you, not too sure I'd like some bloke behind a security screen checking out my body!

Ok, so we shouldn't ever expect security to be 100% perfect, but I'd say getting a blade on board an a/c is a BIG failure.

[Danny]

When are all these journo muppets :yuk: and 'security experts' :rolleyes: going to realise that it doesn't matter what you smuggle on board. The most important thing is THE INTENT to cause problems. The journo could have smuggled a 105mm Howitzer for all I could care. If his only intent was to have his stupid grinning face in the paper then big deal!

When are people going to realise that a knife, 3", 8" or whatever, is not necessary if someone really intends to take over a flight. A 1lt bottle of vodka from the Duty Free shop, smashed properly would make just as effective a weapon. In fact, why not purchase a bottle of expensive cognac as well and use that one as a molotov cocktail?

The issue of the F/D door is something else that would have to be tackled but without going into detail, may or may not be breachable. The issue though is the pathetic security systems that are in place to remove everyday objects yet at the same time there is almost no checking of the passengers intentions through professional and expert profiling. If, as according to some reports that a well aimed food cart will breach the F/D (which I don't believe) then why would any terrorist be stupid enough to try and smuggle a weapon aboard when they can purchase the tools they need once they are airside?

Passenger profiling, in conjunction with other sensible security screening, is the only way to reduce the risk of allowing anyone with the intent of taking over a flight from getting aboard in the first place. Everything else, flight deck doors, armed sky police etc. is a last resort and possibly too little too late.

Why isn't this in place? Beancounters and a tight fisted travelling public who have been so nannied by the state that they just expect everything to be in place automatically. Of course, this is not helped by puerile media sensationalising like the one this thread is about which fails miserably to grasp the notion that it is intent to use a weapon rather than just the weapon itself.

Maybe if it was an exploding knife, sensitive to barometric altitude I could understand the shock & horror but then we would never be so lucky as to have a tabloid journo risk improving the gene pool for the rest of society. :hmm: Sensationalist hype which is going to embarrass the management of the feeble security system that is nothing more than cosmetic camouflage.

[RatherBeFlying]

Anti-Hijack Book for Pax (http://www.brownbooks.com/authors/bogosian/)

Can't do much with a box cutter when there's a half-dozen people piled on top of you:E

[BRISTOLRE]

Read in the DAILY MAIL newspaper yesterday that a T4 BAA metal detector was in use whilst unserviceble. Anyone else read this?
Machine was switched off overnight awaiting parts and the night staff never handed over properly to the morning shift and were hence "using" an u/s walk thru metal detector.
2x BAA staff suspended immediately as "hundereds of passengers went through UNCHECKED"....

[BEagle]

The only 8 inch weapon I take with me on an aeroplane is one which remains in a dormant state unless a particularly lovely stewardess happens to smile at me... :E

Oops, sorry for lowering the tone of the thread. Danny is absolutely right; I wonder whether the reported confiscation of plastic swords from a couple of little lads at Paris today (part of their Peter Pan costumes) was a spin-off from this?

There are so many things which can be used as improvised weapons on aeroplanes that these sensation-seeking journos will continue to peddle their chip-wrappers with such daft 'shock horror' exposes for years to come. Unless, that is, passengers are required to fly nude with no carry-on luggage.

Hope that doesn't give a certain Irish person any ideas!

[maxy101]

I don´t recall hearing of any aircraft hijacked out of T4 yesterday though. Maybe we shouldn´t label every one a potential terrorist and accept the fact that some people shouldn´t have to go through pax levels of security. Problem is, an empire has now arisen and I can´t see security levels dropping for the foreseable future (in the UK) as we don´t have the leadership or courage to take "risky" decisions. I go through Spanish airports an awful lot, and don´t have to put up with the obtrusive nature of BAA security checks, whether as a pax or being forced , on pain of losing my job, to get a Disclosure Certificate that presently takes up to 9 weeks to return. I was given 8 weeks to sort it out , otherwise "the situation will then be handled by your line manager under the policy EG815" . i.e termination of contract
Perhaps in light of the Madrid train bombings, all rail and London Underground pax should be scanned and x-rayed too? Nobody minds going through security, but let us keep it in perspective please and focus on the important things. A pair of nail clippers isn´t going to do any on any harm. So why were they on the prohibited items list after 9/11? Why don´t the BAA have more than 3 or 4 security teams on duty in T1 International Departures when the queues stretch out past the check in desks? The security regime could be a lot less intrusive if the BAA were less interested in maintaining their bottom line and more interested in getting the pax through security. They pay millions for these scanners, why not provide the staff to use them all at the same time?

[Jerricho]

How did I know the "journalist" was going to be from the Sun?

EZY makes an excellent point. What would have happened if a pax sitting next to these morons has seen them posing with the knife and decided something was very wrong, took the knife from him and stabbed him with it. Would the guy pictured try to defend himself by yelling "It's ok, I'm a journalist..........". The now disarmer would probably slit the guys throat on hearing that!

[bigflyingrob]

What do you call 10 journos on the bottom of the sea?



Ans
A good start! I used to work for ITN and journos egos were the biggest problem we had. They only had one state. The "I've got to have it NOW!" state even when there was no urgency at all. Still if we could get that super nanny who is on the telly at the moment all could have been sorted. She is great with spoilt 4 year olds!:E

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Typing "hidden knives" into google gives the very first result as:

http://www.fire-power.com/generic64.html

Which on the first page offers us all for less than $10 a serated knife that absolutely anyone could carry through a 'security' search at an airport with total immunity.


http://www.fire-power.com/Images/PenKnifeSlimLine.jpg

So whats the point?

And why no profiling? The only thing that stands a chance of protecting anyone.

Ah yes. Political correctness.

Let us all remember that when it happens next time.

WWW

[1DC]

If this journalist was now banned from flying on all commercial aircraft, it would be a nice reminder to the next fool who wants to contribute to his "headline portfolio" by cheap journalism.

[Big Hilly]

If this journalist was now banned from flying on all commercial aircraft, it would be a nice reminder to the next fool who wants to contribute to his "headline portfolio" by cheap journalism. True indeed but it's a shame the prat wasn't caught - a few years in a Kuwaiti Jail for 'one of their kind' would make them think twice about trying this sort of nonsense on in the future.

I hope for all our sakes, BA put the silly ar$e on the blacklist.

BH

[ID90]

The 'x-ray machine that sees through clothing' is already working, albeit on trial basis, although I'm told that the technology is well established in the medical world. As mentioned before, there are problems with regard to the somewhat revealing nature of the images delivered by these cameras. As a result, at least two manufacturers are launching versions which - while using exactly the same technology- only show the screener the outline of the person being screened. If and when a 'suspicious' object is detected by the camera, it simply superimposes the object over the outline of the individual, so that the security staff can see exactly where they need to check. Recent studies of passenger opinion at selected UK airports report 99% of people would prefer to go through the camera screening process than undergo the present physical search, so I guess the camera is the way ahead..
As for profiling, its chances of stopping the determined terrorist is virtually nil. While avioding the 'traps' set by profiling procedures may be time consuming for the bad guys, the overall value of profiling is little defence against an intelligent, determined terrorist.

[Carnage Matey!]

Obiously why El Al don't bother with profiling then?

[boeingbus2002]

Why dont they prosecute these journos for taking an illegal weapon on board?
If the journos are genuinely trying to highlight weaknesses for the sake of the travelling public, then they should just point this out descretely to the airline/airport authorities/security etc. Highlighting weaknesses to public and potential terrorists serves no constructive purpose.
If no corrective action is taken after they have told the necessary authorities, then this is the time to possibly make the public aware, but not go into any detail of how the system was flawed.

[ILS 119.5]

The journalistic people who constantly try to prove flaws in the system are wan**rs.
Just imagine a picture published in the papers with the airoplane on the the apron with the captain hanging out of his window weilding the axe from the cockpit and the f/o hanging outside of his window with a pair of nail clippers. "Oh my god how did those nail clippers get on th a/c". Not trying to be funny, but as said earlier it is the intent to use them. What if the captain axed the f/o?. I agree security in our business is at the top and it should be left to the professionals to run it. If there are flaws then these should be highlighted privately. If we have security problems we should address, then it should be done before the journalists do. There are reporting procedures (confidential) in force that we should all use more often if you have any doubts. I think you professionals know what I mean.

[BahrainLad]

It's ironic that BAA seemingly tolerate massive queues at security.....why, it's one of the only times when the passengers can't be shopping! Can't have that.

[Sonic Bam]

Digressing a tad, but heard on BBC Radio 2 the other day about a "prank" some office colleagues played on their manager one day.

He was due to be flying on business somewhere nice and was crowing about it. They borrowed his briefcase/handbaggage whilst he was out of the office and placed in it a pistol shape cut out of heavy duty aluminium foil.

When the manager went to go through security seemingly he was somewhat surprised with the reaction he received.

[Jerricho]

That's just as bloody stupid as these media tossers.

One of these days though, with all these journos trying the same trick, somebody is going to get hurt...........hopefully them.

[visibility3miles]

Was brought on by his young son hidden in a plastic sword

Sigh.

[egld0624]

Big Hilly,

You wrote

"I hope for all our sakes, BA put the silly ar$e on the blacklist."


Why stop there with just BA? BAA, the security services, et al should have this chap on their respective blacklists - possibly as a sensationalist trouble maker and at best a possible future potential hazard to all flights to and from the UK.

Why should a journalist, under such apparent circumstances be deemed any better than somebody that joked about carrying bombs at a check-in counter etc. and was then typically detained and even barred from flying? Is that really worthy of publishing the allegedly self-confessed, self-incriminating evidence in a tabloid to highlight whatever point was intended?

From the thread above, a point that is sadly too possible is if this stunt had gone wrong and the journalist had caused a real panic.

So does that make him a travel hero in the eyes of the media or just an additional unnecessary threat and safety hazard to other passengers and greater public?


EG – 7500 –

[jimmydacraw]

I absolutely agree that the journo involved should be banned from all commercial flights. Is it really sensible to carry on a deadly weapon and pose for a picture with it while in clear view of other passengers?!?

I do think that security recently is being proved to be not up to par shall we say. My Father has just returned from a lengthy photographic trip in Australia, during which he flew on numerous flights with major carriers. When he got home he unpacked his photographic bag which was carried as hand luggage on every flight. He found a swiss army knife in the bottom of it (mistakenly left there). Surely by the shear number of flights he had been on you would have thought that someone would have picked it up on their X-Ray machines?!? Or is it a case of laziness.. the bag was full of lenses, filters, etc.. which are all metallic and various shapes and sizes so how out of the ordinary is a swiss army knife shaped object? It was also I agree equally irresponsible of him to not know it was in his bag!

Something does need done, there is no doubt about it, but as was previously mentioned, security will never be 100% infallible.

Jimmydacraw.

[Engineer]

It would appear that the intention of this person to high light a flaw in a Middle East airport security system has been overwhelmed by the journalistic bashing that exists within this forum.

At least here in KC the results of his action has prompted BA to liase with the DGCA to ensure that all security procedures carried out are of the highest standard.

But alas as I passed through the airport last night and placed my bag on the x ray machine the operator was to busy chatting with his mate and did not even look at the machine.:ugh:

Today's (July 10) Kuwait Times carried the article on the front page and mentioned that the list of the 123 miliants apparently given to the government by the US had not been investigated. The whole middle east region is a hot bed for terrorist groups. Most of the hijackers in 9/11 were KSA nationals

As for the comments on intent and the use of a weapon. It would be rather difficult to cut a few throats with a broken bottle the knife is a better implement

The comments on the locked cockpit door are interesting. What would you do if you could hear the screams of you female cabin crew having their throats cut? A moral dilemma maybe

[maxy101]

Engineer I certainly wouldnt open the flight deck door!

[Big Hilly]

Engineer,

As harsh as it may seem, it's no moral dilemma whatsoever. I doubt that there is a pilot on these boards who would open the door in those circumstances. . . .

BH

[Engineer]

The reason for the door comment was to ensure that flight deck crews are under no delusions that its implementation was to provide you with personal safety. It was fitted to protect the safety of the outside population. Like the cabin crew you are expendable :ugh:

[eal401]

If you're all so upset at how "rubbish" journolists are, why don't you have a change of career and try and put it right by doing the job yourself?

And, no I'm not a journo, before anyone makes the obviously brain-not-engaged comment.

[FlapsOne]

If you are aware of a flaw in security, you should highlight it in the appropriate way.

Use the authorites to sponsor the 'attempted breach' and let them take action.

This was done for a story, pure and simple, and - with NO safeguards in place - had the potential of becoming disastrous had there been a 'baddie' sitting nearby.

This type of publicity seeking action is irresponsible at best and downright dangerous at worst.

If a pilot had done it to highlight a problem, he would have been sacked from his company and villified in the media.

[cwatters]

On a recent flight out of Italy my wife and I were stopped as we were going through x-ray. On opening our hand luggage for inspection we found we had left all our babies eating implements in there (eg knife fork and spoon) rather than just the spoon needed on the flight.

After some discussion the staff asked which airline we were flying with. We told them and they said "That's ok then" and let us continue with all our cutlery onto the plane.

Why would the airline make such a difference?

[ILS 119.5]

I would open the door and take the axe and chop their effing heads off if they threatened any of my crew.

[Engineer]

If you are aware of a flaw in security, you should highlight it in the appropriate way
Depends on your definition of appropriate. The result of the reporter's way in highlighting KWI security flaw has had the desired effect.

Just before you reach immigration a baggage x-ray machine has been installed along with a walk through detector.

The good of the people is the chief law :ok:

[HKPAX]

Irresponsible? - yes. A lesson to be learned? - maybe again yes.

I hope that our security doesn't solely depend on journos out to make a story. Ideally all airports would be subject to random checks by plain clothed "testers" with unauthorised objects in their baggage. If the object is detected, a warrant card is shown and all is well. If it isn't, then training / better equipment / longer rest breaks etc may be needed. A big bonus might be paid to security staff based on results: I don't think I could summon up the required concentration for hours on end, what with whinging kids, uncooperative adults and the insidious pressure to keep the queue flowing.

If this kind of check is done already, then maybe the details shouldn't be aired in a public forum, but leaving the checking to journos would be a bad idea - apart from anything else they are notoriously lazy. (That'll rattle their cages lads!).

BTW Hong Kong airport ALWAYS pick up on any tins in my carry-on, and check that it isn't lighter gas.

[Whippersnapper]

Getting a weapon aboard is an offence, as is carrying a concealed weapon, regardless of intent, and being a Journo should make no difference.

The mere fact that journalists are endangering aircraft and passengers in order to show the world how they got weapons aboard, including those with more sinister motives, and cause public hysteria about further terror attempts should, in my opinion, be treated as conspiracy and colusion with terrorism - after all, they are effectively carrying out the security recon for terrorists, which is the highest risk part of an operation.

By the way, the comment about bar carts penetrating the door is, I think, a joke refering to when an unsecured rear galley cart damaged the door on one of the new 73's at EZY on landing after an empty positioning flight. The door needed a fair bit of Isopon, but it didn't breach. Furthermore, it was the original standard door, not the reinforced type.

[DocManhattan]

With respect, the faith some of you have that security failures can be dealt with internally is quite stunning. It's been proven over and over again that unless companies, governments and their agencies are exposed to external scrutiny then eventually someone will stop doing their job properly, and eventually there will be a catastrophe. In the last couple of months, the news agencies here in Japan have helped expose two large companies -- an automaker and a revolving door manufacturer -- that tried to hush up internal quality failures that killed three people, including a young boy that was crushed to death in a revolving door. In that last case, there were 30 previous instances of minor injuries caused by the doors in question which were hushed up. If companies were not at risk of being exposed by the media, then they would not be answerable for these kinds of failures and everyone would be at greater risk.
And you guys are trying to tell me that it's the media's fault that airport security isn't up to scratch? That reporters should be punished for embarrassing your industry by exposing its failures? Pardon me, but bullsh*t.
I'm not a tabloid reporter, and I am a full-blooded supporter of the aviation and aerospace industries. But there is NOTHING that makes these industries exempt from the same media scrutiny that's applied to all others, to everybody's benefit. Thats democracy for you, so stop whining about it.
Right then, where's my hardhat?

[West Coast]

So by virtue of claiming to be Mickey Spillane, journalists are given some carte blanche and are above the law? What this cat did was illegal and he should be punished. I remember the kid a number of months ago who hid questionable objects on SWA aircraft. He did so as a study of airline security, should he receive the protection you seem to believe journo's do? Where's the line? Next some tabloid tries it and claims immunity by virtue of some journalistic expose in the making, right next to the page three girl.

Who made journalists the sentinels of aviation safety? (besides themselves) There are many other entities I trust far more than the press. I don't think I am among a small minority in that feeling.

[Billy The Squid]

Here's a idea i'd like to put to my fellow Ppruners...

How about we set our our own tabloid newspaper. We then select our best undercover reporter to put on a gormless expression and try and smuggle something into the offices of one of our countries fine tabloid newspapers....

...something they have actively banned

...something they search all who enter the building for to make sure it can never sully their publications

I am of course talking about....THE TRUTH.

What we do is try and smuggle the truth into one of their offices and have our picture taken with it. We then publish it on the front page of our paper with the pretence of giving a flying stuff about our readership and pretending to be the champion of the people for exposing this 'in the interests of the public' (all the while blocking out the cold realisation that we are in fact putting people out of working by keeping a bruised and battered industry on it's knees just to sell a few extra papers)

Who's with me?????

[DocManhattan]

Billy, you're probably being facetious, but still ... no-one cares what you smuggle into a newspaper office unless you actually blow the place up or spray it with bullets. But everyone, whether they read the Currant Bun, the Mail or the Guardian, cares about aircraft security, because almost everyone flies and they want to know how safe flying really is. The newspaper serves the interest of its readers. There you have it.
No, I'm not suggesting journalists should be above the law. I'm just saying that these kinds of exercises -- testing security, testing the safety of products, testing the truth of government statements -- are all legitimate journalistic exercises and don't warrant the outrage that's apparent on this thread.

[Danny]

DocManhatten, you defeat your own argument when you say:no-one cares what you smuggle into a newspaper office unless you actually blow the place up or spray it with bullets.Just as you don't care what is smuggled into a newspaper office, I as a pilot don't care what you smuggle into an aircraft as long you don't blow it up or spray it with bullets.

I and probably most other people do not mind journalists exposing flaws in airport security. The problem I and many others have is with the more serious flaws in airport security that journalists fail to realise exist. In this case, the journalist rightfully exposed a flaw with the security screeners and no doubt that has been dealt with. However, based on your quote above, it is fairly obvious that the biggest flaw in security is not the detection of weapons but the INTENT to use a weapon, whether smuggled on board or not!

Now you tell me where you have seen ANY kind of security that deals with the INTENT to use any weapon (and that includes everyday objects readily available beyond 'security') other than with a very few select airlines. I don't include the "did you pack your own bags and has anyone given you anything to carry" question from the bored check-in person.

[Engineer]

Interesting point here is how do you assess INTENT Do you look at the Muslim at check in and assume that he MAY pose a greater threat than the guy wearing a kippah behind him. Or may be the unshaven/unkept person wearing jeans against the suited person? Or vice versa in both cases.

[West Coast]

"No, I'm not suggesting journalists should be above the law. I'm just saying that these kinds of exercises -- testing security, testing the safety of products, testing the truth of government statements -- are all legitimate journalistic exercises and don't warrant the outrage that's apparent on this thread"


That said then you agree this individual should be punished for violating the law? Otherwise your in conflict with what you say above.

[Danny]

The INTENT is assessed by highly trained security people. The usual quip about singling out 'Moslems' is just typical of those that don't understand precisely what profiling is. It starts with simple questioning and observation followed with more questioning based on the answers to previous questions. These highly trained security people will know what they are looking for, not just the answers to their questions but the physical reactions to their questions. They also know how to read an airline ticket. Once their suspicions are aroused they can call in people more experienced than themselves to take the matter further if necessary. There are many ways to profile a person and using the typical discriminatory statement that they would single out young, middle eastern males travelling alone is just not good enough. Yes, those people may be singled out but a good profiler will be able to make a decision based on answers to their questions fairly quickly. Let's not forget that many people who have slipped through the net have not been single, middle eastern looking men.

The problem is not the discriminatory side of profiling but the cost of it. Unfortunately the airlines, governments and passengers pay lip service to the security needs but when it comes down to forking out for this real security it is probably cheaper to risk another 9/11 than face the long term costs of such a secure system. As long as it looks like something is being done, ie. a bunch of uniformed people operating a metal detector and an x-ray machine then that is much cheaper than real security and everyone who has a friend or relative who has had nail clippers removed will believe that it was for the best. Like lambs to the slaughter, the travelling public will believe that journos like the one featured in this post are doing a real service. Until those journalists highlight the real deficiencies, then nothing much is going to change until some very clever terrorists realise that it really is quite easy to bypass the current cosmetic farce most people call 'security'. :hmm:

[Whippersnapper]

There is no justification for smuggling weapons aboard. The Journos are not trying to provide a safety service, they are merely trying to make a quick buck out of selling a scare story. If they were interested in our safety, they'd conduct their research legitimately or use fake weapons.

If they tried to storm the flight deck, would your arguement "they're only journos testing security" stil hold water? What if they sabotaged aircraft (testing engineers etc)? Or having breached the flightdeck, interfered with the controls to "test the pilots abilities to recover a situation"? Where do you draw the line?

There are licensed and controlled groups who test security arrangements. Let them get on with the job, and stop defending self-interested, panic inducing and dangerous journalists.

[Invictus]

Whippersnapper, - Well said.

Even the ploy of testing security (in this instance) could be used by evil intending people who could then claim that they were just "Testing the system".

If anyone feels inclined to do private testing of the aviation security systems, they should be invited to test the law and the jails when they are caught.

Invictus

[DocManhattan]

Danny, While I'm pretty sure I appreciate where you're coming from, I must say I think you're on very dodgy ground. Unless you're a mind reader, it's impossible to be completely sure of another person's intent. I believe you support profiling and treating people differently based on their profile -- banning some ... based on what? Their faith? Their race? Whether they've attended political rallies? What Web sites they've visited? Whether they were more outraged by the murder of Nick Berg or the U.S. bombing of that Iraqi wedding?

Find it a bit hard to imagine exactly what you're suggesting. That you profile people when they buy their tickets? Or when they arrive at the airport? Enormously time- and resource-consuming, expensive and necessarily inconveniencing a whole bunch of people that are not terrorists. Whatever you say, this will be perceived as racist harrassment when innocent Muslims are questioned and delayed or kept off their flights on suspicion, and this will make more aggrieved yougsters sympathetic to the extremist cause. Or do you think it's better -- certainly more egalitarian -- if your local authorities prepare profiles of everybody, regardless of race, etc?

You cannot have a free society that tries to police intent, or inclination. Societies that have tried -- like, say, the Soviet Union or Communist China, especially during the Cultural Revolution -- are pretty horrible places to live. If you want freedom of speech and thought, then you have to accept that some are going to say and think and believe things you violently disagree with.

You might think it's a relatively minor sacrifice to guarantee safety. Well, I disagree. Firstly, once terrorists get to grips with how profiling works, they will find ways to sidestep it. Recruit covertly from among people that don't fit the typical profile. Then the profiling and scrutiny of the authorities has to get more rigorous and intrusive, and then eventually you no longer have any kind of a society worth fighting for -- all you've got is Orwell's 1984. That's not acceptable to me. Living in a totalitarian state is, for me and many others, too high a price to pay for security.

So the alternative is that you have to police the concrete things as rigorously as possible. You make sure no weapons get on the aeroplanes. You make damn sure that airport security is tight as a gnat's chuff and everyone's on their toes. And one of the ways of doing this is by making sure the guards know they could be tested, independently, at any moment. And if they fail to do their job properly, then people are going to be reading about it over their Corn Flakes the next day and their career prospects will suddenly be much more limited.

As to whether I believe this reporter should be prosecuted -- well, if he broke the law and this can be proved in a court of law, then yes. The media are supposed to be a rogue element, but they're not outlaws. As a journalist myself, I believe that there are times when it's justified to break the law in the interests of the public. Then you publish and be damned, face the consequences and you've done your job. I don't think this guy will be prosecuted, though. Bad publicity ...

Equally, to be completely fair, I think TDK Mk2 (see post on page 1 of this thread) should face the consequences of habitually smuggling nail scissors through BAA security. After all, it's against the rules -- and frankly, I think that's much harder to justify.

[Danny]

Unless you have experienced passenger profiling you will not have any idea what it is about. no one has mentioned anything about racial profiling and your assumption that that is what I was referring to shows how little idea you have about it.

Of course it is going to be very expensive and time consuming. My point in this debate is that if you want better security then put up or shut up. We all know that there is indeed a price or value placed on a human life when it comes to aviation and the regulatory groups that control it.

No one has guaranteed that any system is foolproof but some systems are better than others and the point I am trying to make is that what we see at the moment is nothing short of farcical. Maybe not to the travelling public who are spoon-fed nonsense by the tabloids and other audience hungry news media that what we have now is as good as it gets. :rolleyes:

To recoil in shock horror at the word 'profiling' and to immediately assume that it is based someones appearance only goes to show how limited most peoples experience and knowledge of how proper security works. It only shows an aversion to questioning that cowers behind the cloak of Political Correctness.

If you want to reduce the chances of another 9/11 style attack using airliners or just reduce the chance of a hijacking, then more needs to be done and passenger profiling is just another tool in the armoury. Unfortunately, it is an expensive one which is conveniently avoided under the guise of erosion of civil liberties.

What do I care? I'm safe behind my bullet-proof cockpit door. :bored: If other people can't understand that a few qualified questions and a glance at the ticket will be all that's needed for the vast majority of passengers with the occasional need for further questions should there be anything that doesn't seem quite right, based on current intelligence, then just let them keep the current joke that is so easily bypassed. Once again, the authorities can close the stable door after the horse has bolted. It's probably just a matter of time. :rolleyes:

[Engineer]

Unless you have experienced passenger profiling you will not have any idea what it is about

Are you talking about CAPP or Matchmaker?

[Taildragger67]

Whippersnapper, IMHO you are right to suggest that journos don't do what this guy did and that it should be left to "controlled and licenced" organisations.

But maybe that's where Danny's cost arguments come in - maybe the "controlled and licenced" organisations don't have the resources to do their job to the extent that it should be done. So maybe, the hysteria created by the likes of this journo do two things:
a) create a bit of heat under the relevant administration to put a few more resources into security (in whatever form, eg. pre-boarding or profiling as suggested in this thread);
b) create a climate where the punters are happy to pay a bit extra (ie. be less "penny-pinching").

So whilst not defending the journo, maybe his (illegal) actions can have a positive outcome. Of course the negative is that it might encourage other more nefarious persons to give it a try themselves, before any resources can be applied - so for that reason alone, the guy deserves some condemnation.

However it does beg the question, what is happening to the extra charge made for security these days?

Drags

[DocManhattan]

Danny's right, I have no idea how passenger profiling will work in practice. However, as an educated layman I'm going to need some convincing to believe that you can accurately assess a person's intent just from a couple of questions and a look at their ticket. And I'm going to need a lot more convincing before I believe that profilers are going to be entirelly colourblind in deciding whom to take aside for further questioning. I don't understand how you can be so dismissive of this issue, Danny.
I also fail to understand how you can say that the media is trying to convince the public that the security we have now is ``as good as it gets''. It's precisely the sort of article we're discussing here that shows security as it is is really pretty hopeless and needs to be tightened. I take it we're in agreement on that point.
My argument is that it's better to tighten measures that keep the tools of the terrorist's trade off aircraft than it is to adopt measures, such as profiling, that risk inflaming racial tensions. Scoff all you like, but until someone demonstrates otherwise, then I believe that is what they will do.
Taildragger, from your post it's clear that you understand the benefits that this type of article brings, yet still you can't quite bring yourself to admit that the reporter may have been justified in doing what he did. The story ``might encourage other more nefarious persons to give it a try themselves''? I hardly think so. Firstly, guards will be that much more alert after a publicly embarrassing expose like this, and secondly, if someone's got the fanatical mentality of a terrorist, then it's going to take a lot more than a newspaper article to sway their decisions one way or the other.
I'm not trying to suggest that what this reporter did is in any way revolutionary, or worthy of special praise -- it's just a typical, bread-and-butter expose and it's been done many times before. But the fact that it still CAN be done clearly shows the need for improving our approach to airport security. And the fact that it was done publicly means someone may be embarrassed enough to actually do something. Democratic societies need this type of reporting. Period.

[West Coast]

"Democratic societies need this type of reporting"

Then who protects us from you, the rogue reporter who believes himself above the law?

[DocManhattan]

West Coast, if you'd read my previous posts, then you'll see I say that I don't believe reporters are above the law. If a reporter breaks the law, he is liable for the same punishments as anyone else. But sometimes I believe it's the right thing to do to break a law - and face the consequences - to make a more important point.
And exactly what type of protection do you, the private citizen, need from us scheming journalists? In what way have you personally been damaged by this newspaper story, or any other?
Any protection you need is provided by libel laws. Believe me, in my organization we have to be extremely careful what we write ... (not sure I can say the same for all publications ...)

[Engineer]

Pax profiling was employed on AA77 for 3 of the hijackkers and also a further check pulled 2 of the other guys. But to no avail.

Maybe El Al have had success with their PF but you cannot base that limited result on a world wide hope

What do you say Danny?

[satis 5]

if anyone is aware of a security short coming, they must make the relavent authorities aware as soon as possible.
failure to do so could have consequences too great.
if reporters are caught, they must be made to suffer the severity of the law.
if the item was misplaced in their journey would they raise the alarm?
or if it was found in an a/c, world wide terror alerts resulting?

[WestWind1950]

I haven't read through all the posts here, so I'm not sure if the following point has been brought up:
What if on board that flight an actual hijacking DID occur? Can you imagine the consequences for this reporter (and later his family) when through the later investigation the (innocent?) knife was discovered? Do reporters think of that possibility? If he got through, then possibly a REAL terrorist did, too.... so, in my mind, a reporter pulling such tricks is just plain stupid! (though I must agree, discovering the loop holes in security is important... but please leave it to those paid to do that!.... my opinion)

Westy

[2close]

Having added such journalists to my list of post-revolution lamp-post decorations, along with solicitors, insurance executives and Chavs, I have to get my two-pence worth in !!!!

Sec.1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 (and subsequent related legislation) makes it an offence:

"to have an offensive weapon whilst in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. Offensive weapons can be articles made or adapted for causing injury, OR other articles intended to be used for such purposes."

If you have the weapon on your person without lawful authority or reasonable excuse then you have committed a crime punishable on conviction on indictment by a maximum 4 years imprisonment or a Level 5 fine. The question arises whether the jury would consider his actions to be with lawful authority or reasonable excuse - the former is well and truly out of the window and personally I would not be swayed by his journalistic privilege - exactly the same could probably have been achieved with a carboard cut-out wrapped in tin foil. Why do it in the first place? - as soon as he was through security into the departure lounge that should have been enough, point proved. But to go on to the aircraft itself, thereby creating a real risk; unnecessary, and probably driven by financial and self-ego reasons.

So the question is raised - why hasn't he been arrested, charged, tried and possibly convicted? If not by the police, then privately by the airline or airport - you can, in this country, bring a private criminal prosecution. That may make them think twice.

Or, on the flip side of the argument, am I completely wrong and has he really performed a public service?

[cargo boy]

So the question is raised - why hasn't he been arrested, charged, tried and possibly convicted? If not by the police, then privately by the airline or airport - you can, in this country, bring a private criminal prosecution. The naivety of some posters on here beggars belief!If you're going to take part in a grown up discussion then at least lets get rid of the playground 'lawyers'.

So, why don't you take out a private prosecution 2close if you're so distraught about it? Better to not put into print something that makes you appear foolish as it has a habit of proving to everyone else that you really are! :rolleyes:

Are you going to prosecute everyone who manages to slip through 'security' with anything that can be used as a weapon? How about a steel ball-point pen? Maybe you should arrest every off-duty pilot who goes through with sharp, pointy wings attached to their jackets?

This is the 'professional pilots' rumour network... so why are so many hysterical hangers-on chipping in with their unenlightened drivel? I'm off to start my own website where the posters at least have to pass an IQ test and show some basic understanding of aviation. :*

[rotaryman]

Cargo Boy!

I'm with ya,, let me know your webb address LOL:)

[2close]

Firstly, Cargo Boy, I am not hysterical nor distraught. If anything is, it's your vociferous response.

Secondly, although I admit the wording could have been a bit better it was just an open question, designed to encourage debate, not a demand by myself to actually prosecute. I think you'll find reading back through the whole thread that there are plenty of professionals out there who feel quite strongly about this man's stupidity. But you've made your own point on such matters adbundantly clear - I suppose you feel because he's a journo, not only is he allowed to flount the law in a blatantly irresponsible manner but he's also permitted to broadcast the fact to all, qualifying it in terms of public interest. I wonder how many others would have been allowed to get away with it.

Thirdly, pens and silver wings!!! For Gods sake, be serious. Pens are not normally weapons nor are they ever usually intended to be weapons and I would never suggest such. Have you seen what a rolled up newspaper can do to someone - not pretty. So what then, ban newspapers, I think not. But the fact remains, this was not a pen, a set of wings nor was it the Daily Blah - it was a knife!!!

Lastly, no I am not a lawyer but I am qualified and experienced in criminal law as well as Health & Safety - these are the points under discussion, not the finer points of flying but public safety.

BTW, what is your IQ? - mine was last measured at 138, not that it's got anything to do with the subject.

[JW411]

I can't believe that we actually have someone on this forum flaunting their IQ.

I have known many people in my long career in aviation who have boasted of being members of MENSA and of having very high IQs.

Just about every one of them scored close to ZERO when it came to common sense and how to get out of trouble when your a*se was on fire.

If you want some advice from someone who has been in this game for close to half a century then keep very quiet about the fact that you have a high IQ. It is of no importance to anyone else but you.

Otherwise, everyone else will know who to blame when things go to ratsh*t!

[rotaryman]

Is that a Rocket Launcher in your pocket? or are you just glad to see me?

[El Desperado]

Satis said:

if anyone is aware of a security short coming, they must make the relavent authorities aware as soon as possible.

I've been flying aircraft out of Glasgow airport for five years plus. I highlighted a very obvious security flaw to the BAA security people and after being shouted at by the staff on the scene, I was given a four-letter suggestion to go and do something else by their manager.

I wrote to the police at Glasgow who said they agreed, but had no jurisdiction inside the terminal - external security only - and suggested I make my points to the head of BAA security. Which I did. Two no-responses later, I wrote to and emailed the overall manager of BAA. Nothing. Not even a 'we have looked at your suggestions/opinions and believe they are wrong because....' kind of response.

You can still smuggle explosives, weapons, ammunition - in fact, whatever you like, through Glasgow airport, because the BAA security muppets don't want any opinion other than their own to be heard. The flaw is still there. And it's not a 'down the sewers, burn through the security grate, crack the combination lock, James Bond kind of flaw...' - it's a very real, obvious and still present flaw in the current screening process. If I can see it, someone else can.

So... why bother telling BAA... they couldn't give a toss.

[2close]

I can't believe that we actually have someone on this forum flaunting their IQ.

JW411,

Not flaunting my IQ, I really couldn't care less what it is and I would never have brought the subject up if it hadn't been for an accusation that I would be unable to pass an IQ test.

FWIW, and to momentarily digress from the thread subject completely, I'm with you 100% on IQ tests and their applicability to ability. I don't think they give any real indication of a person's skillbase with other types of tasks and yes, it has no relation to common sense or an ability to cope with a high stress situation.

Back to the subject, El Desperado brings up some very interesting points here. And the words I see in flashing lights are APATHY, COMPLACENCY and what I call 'The Ostrich Syndrome' - hide your head in the sand and it won't touch us!!

So, where does the fault lie and how does the industry combat these issues in an effective manner?

No opinions there, just a totally open question? And I am genuinely interested in what professional aviators think.

[dicksynormous]

Whats an IQ?

Whats the problem with including race in profiling, scared we might upset them.

If a certain ethnic group form the majority of the threat then its right to target them. As for the normal citizens in these groups, well they have the ability to engender trust from the rest of society by disowning the extremists, or at least their agenda. A thing many seem reluctant to do.

When the IRA were paramount,most of the suspects were irish and targeted accordingly, no one seemed too bothered at the time especially the majority of Irish.

The current threat is from from a certain religous and ethnic based grouping, you do the math. Eliminate the threat and we can start to repair the damage.