PDA

View Full Version : Security Incident at MAN This Morning


Sky_Captain
23rd Sep 2005, 08:33
.

angels
23rd Sep 2005, 09:05
This news just coming into the City. It's hit sterling.

1DC
23rd Sep 2005, 09:09
Amusing listening to sky news trying hard to make a bigger drama out of this.
Sky-Captain's report is far superior and has more facts.

G-CPTN
23rd Sep 2005, 09:15
>Amusing listening to sky news trying hard to make a bigger drama out of this.
Sky-Captain's report is far superior and has more facts.

*********************************

And how much better to get it straight from the horse's mouth!

BBC reporter at MAN hinted at 'reports by a pilot on an Internet website - but we needed confirmation from the Police'
Big Aunty is watching you . . .

threemiles
23rd Sep 2005, 09:15
"All surrounding aircraft and terminal gates were evacuated as an exclusion zone of 100metres was put in place. "

What happened to yours then?

G-CPTN
23rd Sep 2005, 09:17
>"All surrounding aircraft and terminal gates were evacuated as an exclusion zone of 100metres was put in place. "

What happened to yours then?

*********************************

Suspect he was returned to barracks, from where he posted the news, otherwise he's got a Blackberry on the Flight Deck!

Norman Stanley Fletcher
23rd Sep 2005, 09:20
Remarkable restraint by the police. They would have been entirely within their rights to put a couple of bullets in his head IMHO.

G-CPTN
23rd Sep 2005, 09:24
>Remarkable restraint by the police. They would have been entirely within their rights to put a couple of bullets in his head IMHO.

***********************************

Dead men tell no tales, so interrogation would be pointless. Might just be a nutter (like the guy at Windsor Castle) or he could be the Missing Link - even Oso Been Missing himself . . .

They did apparently use a Tazer-gun.

MaxReheat
23rd Sep 2005, 09:28
Not exactly a covert terrorist infiltration. Surprised he didn't go the whole hog and wear a Biffo the Bear suit.

Curious Pax
23rd Sep 2005, 09:38
Hmmm - so while security in the terminal are looking for nail clippers, downstairs you can just walk round a barrier it seems. Someone's going to get heat for this. Fortunately from the description posted it sounds like a nutter who was late arriving for his flight and thought he would make up time by bypassing some of the formalities. Or he's a Sun reporter.....

Helen49
23rd Sep 2005, 09:39
So as devil's advocate, does this prove that security with all its costs and inconvenience is a waste of time because if there is a 'will' to access airside there is always a 'way'?

H49

Jordan D
23rd Sep 2005, 09:48
Story being covered by BBC News here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4274516.stm)

Let's see what happens before making too much comment.

Jordan

MaxReheat
23rd Sep 2005, 09:50
H49

Yes! We all know how ineffectual security measures are to the determined individual. Unfortunately the idiots in charge of security departments around the world (driven largely by the knee-jerkers in the US and the anally retentive Brits) won't admit that billions of pounds and squandered time is wasted all for the sake of a 'show' of security.

ILS27LEFT
23rd Sep 2005, 09:51
I think we should start thinking of armed security officers at these barriers as they already do in other European Airports.
Heathrow is plenty of weak airside access points too... and if somebody wants to break through, even with a van, they can easily do it and nobody has got weapon to dissuade them!
A standard security unarmed guy positioned there is insufficient nowadays and does not represent a deterrent at all!
We should follow what they do in other European airports: each airport access should have a guy with a machine gun there.

We should also position (urgently) armed officers at each terminal entrance as it is too easy now to enter a Terminal and blow it up.
In other airports abroad each Terminal entrance is guarded by a heavily armed officer who can also ask for tickets and check identities if needed. This, at present, would make sense.

:mad:

Sky_Captain
23rd Sep 2005, 09:51
.

TURIN
23rd Sep 2005, 09:55
BBC radio now reporting that T1 & T2 are closed.

huckleberry58
23rd Sep 2005, 10:09
If I just heard correctly, Sky_Captain just got paraphrased on BBC and PPRUNE was called a 'reputable pilot's website'. Oh boy...

philip2004uk
23rd Sep 2005, 10:10
Everyone is talking about security at airports, i dont think they'll do the airport and i think we should have more security measures in our shopping centres better yet put more money from the airport security into immigration and MI5 security surveilance even though they do do a great job we need more people to join these agencies.

Robert Vesco
23rd Sep 2005, 10:11
BBC World just quoted Sky_Captain´s first post on this thread and said it came from a "reputable pilot´s website."

:ok:

angels
23rd Sep 2005, 10:13
Reuters now reporting MAN has re-opened.

ILS27LEFT
23rd Sep 2005, 10:25
Nothing against shopping centres, but the economical impact of an attack on an airport Terminal would be well beyond imagination...:mad:
...could you imagine LHR operating without one or two terminals after an attack?...I cannot imagine this.

phoenix son
23rd Sep 2005, 10:26
Roads still sealed off, though flights are getting back to normal, apart from the obvious 3-hour backlog...ATC slot delays anyone?:mad:

Should've shot the silly f****r IMO...

stagger
23rd Sep 2005, 10:34
Sky_Captain's first post just read out verbatim on Radio 5

2 Greens 1 Red!
23rd Sep 2005, 10:36
Well done to all invloved. I call for Manchester Airport Head of Security's resignation! More ARMED security for all.

So, just how long have you been a "CAPTAIN" for SC? Your run of bad luck continues eh...........:E

phoenix son
23rd Sep 2005, 10:45
What's going on with Sky Captain's posts?:confused:

SQUAWKIDENT
23rd Sep 2005, 10:48
Maybe he's sold his story to a newspaper..

YYZ
23rd Sep 2005, 10:50
Did not see his posts, but if he is being quoted on TV and he is using second hand information, then, I guess he is being careful and removing his posts to avoid repercussion?

YYZ

Bart O'Lynn
23rd Sep 2005, 10:55
I hope it was a sun reporter because that taser has got to hurt.

stellair
23rd Sep 2005, 11:15
I have also just seen a news channel misquoting statements made on this thread, you lot at newsdesks are obviously following this thread and taking any minor facts you see fit and blowing them out of all proportion to create 'wow factor news.' You belong in the ranks of traffic wardens, get a job you need to have a brain for......Climb back in your sewer. For the rest of us lets be careful what we post on here so these idiots who wouldn't know an AI from a VSI don't manipulate the facts In the hope of whipping up a scare amongst the public. We get enough bad press as it is...........:mad:

G-CPTN
23rd Sep 2005, 12:12
>phoenix son
>What's going on with Sky Captain's posts?
>Should've shot the silly ****** IMO...

**********************************

I say, that's a bit harsh. Poor chap was only the FO after all.
Anyway they've blown their cover now . . .

Time for a sharp exit!

Widger
23rd Sep 2005, 12:14
Apparenetly at MAN there was a STU with a PID, he went across the IGN towards the ORA and was stopped by the T. His answer was that he was only HAC'ing. Threatened with S he returned to SHI via the THEAD.

ILS27LEFT
23rd Sep 2005, 12:17
Before it is too late we need to implement the following:

-armed policemen at each terminal entrance, only passengers with tickets should be allowed through.

-armed security guards at each airside access on the external perimeter, they must be armed I am afraid!

Do not forget that group of islamist extremists at FCO (Rome) a few years ago...after that the Italians used to have armed guards at each entrance...they learned it the hard way!

Now Terminals are completely open to anybody...and the economical impact of a main International HUB being disrupted by an attack cannot be compared to the same attack on a train or tube station I am afraid...this is why Airports should be treated differently I think. They are highly strategic for the whole economy.

:mad:

Pontius Navigator
23rd Sep 2005, 12:19
On restricting access to terminals, in Chennai, in 2000, only bonafide travellers were permitted in the terminal.

Travellers entered the terminal though a barrier funnel, proved their credentials, had a baggage check, and then were allowed to go to the checkin desks.

There were further checks at the gates.

In bound they had luggage scanners after baggage reclaim and before immigration and customs.

So many places do it well you wonder why so many places do it wrong.

brain fade
23rd Sep 2005, 12:22
Fletcher/ phoenix son.

You suggested the twit should have been shot!

Why? He's bound to be some sort of half wit and stupidity is not yet a capital offence in the UK (thank ****!).

It seems an unlikely approach for a 'genuine' terrorist. Probably that missing pax, you know the one who checks in then fails to appear! Always wondered where they get to.

Don't you think we've had enough of that sort of thing recently?
Shooting innocents I mean, well lost pax too come to think of it.:sad:

G-CPTN
23rd Sep 2005, 12:24
>-armed policemen at each terminal entrance, only passengers with tickets should be allowed through.

***********************************

That would stop all EZY SLF from getting to check-in.

I'm still pondering over whether meeters and greeters should be allowed on-site.

Pontius Navigator
23rd Sep 2005, 12:45
G-CPTN, see my post above.

The downside of the Indian system was the chaos in the car park. Only 2 movements, our BA 747 in and the same one due out.

450 pax struggling out, 450 pax struggling in, 1350 plus meeters and greeters each way - 3 600 people milling around in the dark and no doubt a huge number of other odds and sods too.

As running a car generator to power lights increase fuel consumption, I am told, most of the vehicles are running around without lights. Even on the 4-lane dual carriage way, with 6 lanes in use, the only illumination was from brake lights, those that worked :cool:

barry lloyd
23rd Sep 2005, 13:00
Having read the posts in connection with this, I cannot believe the levity with which the situation is being treated.
The following are the facts:
1) An unauthorised person is seen handling a suitcase on the apron (ramp) at an active gate.
2) The police move in and try to arrest him, but he resists strongly, and is only arrested after the Taser has been used.
3) The bomb squad are called in, and explode the suitcase, the remnants of which are still being examined.
4) Manchester Airport is closed for about three hours.

Clearly this is a serious incident. Whilst the person who was arrested may be acting alone, the seriousness of his actions is without question. (Anyone remember Lockerbie?).

Because it took place outside the Great Metropolis, it is being treated as something less than important. After all Manchester is just a holiday airport isn't it? (wrong!). Doubtless if this had been Heathrow, we'd have had programme interruptions, and all the usual paraphernalia. I haven't seen the TV coverage, but no doubt the usual suspects have been airing their views about security breaches etc., time will tell.
No I don't work for, or have any connection with Manchester Airport, other than using it as a passenger from time to time. Breaches of airport security in these times are serious. Let's treat them as such, whether it's Heathrow Manchester or Barra.

brain fade
23rd Sep 2005, 13:31
It WILL be serious if he was a genuine baddy. Bet he tuns out to be notso.

Have to wait & see.:rolleyes:

haughtney1
23rd Sep 2005, 13:49
wheres barra? is that somewhere ooop north?

And the reason you get better coverage at heathrow is cause Sky News is about 10mins down the road:cool:

G-CPTN
23rd Sep 2005, 14:25
According to the Press Conference:-
"At no time did the suspect get anywhere near any aircraft - never closer than 60 metres."
Sky_Captain?
"The man was carrying a BRIEFCASE" (my caps) " . . . which was found to contain clothes and a passport."

Maybe also an airline ticket? So he would have passed the proposed 'ring of iron'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4274516.stm

chiglet
23rd Sep 2005, 14:44
barry lloyd
4) Manchester Airport is closed for about three hours
WRONG! The airport never closed :mad:
Reduced Landing rate, and departures from [amongst others] Terminal 2. A/c remotely parked. When I left, the T1 concourse was carnage, but we [ATC] were "Pushing Tin" :ok:
watp,iktch

eggpops8
23rd Sep 2005, 15:15
As usual Barrie lloyd jumps in on a thread he has no knowledge about.

Goback to reading flight international Barrie or are you still flying HRH around :yuk:

barry lloyd
23rd Sep 2005, 15:53
chiglet:

Not as far as ATC was concerned, but you'd have found it difficult to get anywhere near the airport during this time, and you certainly couldn't have checked in, because Terminals 1&2 were emptied. The BBC website referred to in G-CPTNs posting says that there was a police cordon around the airport for three hours.

G-CPTN:

If he's been detained under the Mental Health Act, then it's still a serious incident. We will doubtless hear more about this in time.

G-CPTN
23rd Sep 2005, 16:13
>The BBC website referred to in G-CPTNs posting says that there was a police cordon around the airport for three hours.

**********************************
BBC Radio Five Live reports certainly sounded that the only way IN to MAN was by air . . .
(Interviews with would-be and had-been travellers.)

**********************************

>he's been detained under the Mental Health Act

**********************************
Agreed that it's a serious incident. But WHY did he get that far? I understand that he was being 'persued'. So how did he get 200 metres onto the APRON?

LGW15
23rd Sep 2005, 16:15
It has happened before people have got guns onto planes at Manchester and the airport is not secure in the slightest.

helicopter-redeye
23rd Sep 2005, 16:42
Was there something similar at Nottingham (East Mids) on Wednesday? I was on an in-bound flight that was delayed due to a 'security incident' but nothing more was said.

NEMA was noticibly less keen to have people on the ramp ... bus 30 metres to the way in & twice the staff around the bus .....

Co-incidence or more ????

h-r:)

Spacer
23rd Sep 2005, 16:45
I feel that SC has proved you need to be careful about what you post on here. A few friends have been bitten. Remember some unsavoury types may lurk here! :)

Gertrude the Wombat
23rd Sep 2005, 17:03
stupidity is not yet a capital offence in the UKEr, stupidity has always been a capital offence, this is a law of nature which last I heard wasn't overridden by the laws of the UK. (Variously attributed, but the idea must be as old as society.)

frostbite
23rd Sep 2005, 17:04
Not even given a mention in the BBC1 6 o'clock News headlines, so can't have been too significant.

edit:

They did feature it in the news after all - premature posting.

loman1
23rd Sep 2005, 19:22
god help us when the security bods get working on this one, will properbly ban crews from the a/c altogether !, gets me back to why crews with let's face it the obvious responsibility are banned from using the staff doors between out/in pax but temp staff, ie wheel chair pusher's / temp agents can !!!!

typical manchester, all show, to busy looking for nail clippers

ridiculous.

brain fade
23rd Sep 2005, 20:12
Just heard on the 9 O'clock news that a chap's been detained 'under the mental health act'

Still think they should have shot him anyone?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

chiglet
23rd Sep 2005, 21:35
Mr Lloyd,
You made a "Statement"
4) Manchester Airport is closed for about three hours.
You were wrong
I admit that there were "restrictions" on entering the three Terminals. However, "some" of the pax inside "various" Terminals were allowed to board their a/c and "Depart".
ALL inbound a/c were allowed to land and "Park" [albeit REMOTE].
Ergo.....
Manchester Airport was NOT closed or to put it another way...... We Wuz Open...... Full Stop
watp,iktch

HOMER SIMPSONS LOVECHILD
24th Sep 2005, 09:24
"Man with briefcase gets within 60m of huge inert lump of aluminium"
While true that post 9/11 these nutters will always be drawn to the aviation environment I think there is an underlying delusion at work here.There is always an unspoken implication that an incident like this could lead to another Twin Towers type scenario. Errrm,,how? Perhaps he could have removed all the service trucks,steps etc ,closed the doors,started up,removed the chocks,taxied out (being carefull when crossing 24R) ,took off,flew to London and crashed into the Houses of Parliment!
Best just shoot em in case

Gunner B12
24th Sep 2005, 09:55
Guys,

You need to get better press agents.

When the pilot has a small incident, it's "We all nearly died "!! and the likes.

Security gets it totally wrtong and "It appears that the airport security system worked exactly as it is intended to."

You guys don't stand a chance of public support until you get the same quality of press coverage!

:) :) :) :)

brain fade
24th Sep 2005, 10:11
"Security" at civil airports is a complete joke. MAN, mind you,is in some respects, with its paticularly slavish and hard to fathom adherence to equally incomprehensible 'rules', in a class of its own.

The only reason there's not been a major terrorist incident yet is because they haven't tried one yet.

The 'illusion' of security provided for the public will have no chance of stopping anyone who makes a proper attempt.

d246
25th Sep 2005, 08:11
Security at most major airports is a joke. The system is run by clowns ‘sucuree mate’ who apply little or no common sense to the job. Manchester really take the prize, crews get ‘frisked’ for setting of the walk through alarm but the reason never established, the inside of hats are inspected, it’s a joke. Why people have to be physically assaulted i.e. frisked rather than scanned with a wand defeats me. I don’t know whether security have the right to do this without reasonable cause but we do of course live in a Stalinist police state. Amazing the number of white middle aged pax pulled over for the random frisk, obviously number one suspects.

Mr Chips
25th Sep 2005, 17:33
errr d426 please tell me that your last post was tongue in cheek...

crews get ‘frisked’ for setting of the walk through alarm but the reason never established
You want a written report after being frisked? Its probably your belt buckle, or the badge on your jacket. they are not looking for the source of the bing, just making sure you have nothing illicit.

the inside of hats are inspected, it’s a joke Why should the hat not be inspected? I bet you could get a weapon or explosives in there...


Why people have to be physically assaulted i.e. frisked rather than scanned with a wand defeats me. I don’t know whether security have the right to do this without reasonable cause No, you a\re right, they have no right to do this, which is how it goes on every single day, sometimes even watched by government inspectors.

Amazing the number of white middle aged pax pulled over for the random frisk, obviously number one suspects Shall we all get out a dictionary and look up the word "Random"? I wonder what percentage of Manchester passengers are white and middle aged. If what i see at Heathrow is anything to go by - fairly high!

I go through airport security every day, and I don't bitch about it. But then again I'm not a pilot...

d246
25th Sep 2005, 19:12
No, don't require a written report just some indication that the there is some point to the process. Most airports reqiure the cause of the alarm being set of to be established i.e. the persoon to remove likely objects and pass through the machine again, not at Man.
Aircrew of course frequently hide guns and explosives in their hats, they go well with the fire axe and extinguishers on the flight deck.
Since when was this government or its inspectors conscious of the law or citizens rights.
The inspectors use the word random, 'DTI securee mate, random searches required of those who don't set of the alarm.' I observe them quite frequently, they take the easy option, white middle aged, not rastafarian.
I suspect you may be a securee person, you should have tried harder at school.

Mr Chips
25th Sep 2005, 23:20
No, I'm not a security guard. i did quite well at school, and I realise that a random sample of passengers will statistically lean towards the majority group. i also realise that rules should apply to everyone walking through security, otherwise I may as well go to a costume hire shop and dress as a pilot. No, they don't inspect my ID card to see who I am when they search me.

If they didn't have the right to search people, i feel fairly sure that they would have been stopped by now...

Like I said, I don't bitch about the times I am searched, but I don't think that I am somehow immune to the searches.

zed3
29th Sep 2005, 20:42
I arrived at Manchester with BA at around 1700 and the queue in terminal 3 (BA) was way back to past the Brit Midland area , back towards the eateries . Question ..... if the guy was aprehended why the panic ? why the delays ..... security is still in operation in the terminal building . It must have been obvious where the leak was , they got him , so what was the problem ?

419
30th Sep 2005, 11:05
Zed,
It may be that due to the man being detained might have been a suspected terrorist bomber, and the last 2 major terrorist attacts in the UK all involved groups of 4 men. For safety reasons, the security at Manchester airport would have to confirm that this man was on his own, and not part of a larger group.