Spotters asked to prevent terrorism!

[shoey1976]

Hi all
Ian Shoesmith from BBC News again. I was the fella who did the pilot fatigue investigation, along with transport correspondent Tom Symonds. We're just about to run with this story this morning:

"Plane spotters are set to be recruited by the police to help safeguard an airport from criminal and terrorist activity. Durham Tees Valley airport near Darlington is looking at the possibility of an 'airport watch' scheme. Danny Savage reports:

The airport says the scheme would harness aircraft spotters' expert knowledge and regular presence and add it to existing safety measures.A similar initiative has been up and running at Bristol Airport since March this year, using spotters as extra eyes and ears for the police and on-site security staff. Organisers are stressing a meeting next week to discuss the proposals was arranged long before the recent incident at Glasgow airport. But police say they believe that plane spotters could potentially be the first to spot any suspicious activity at the airport."

We'd be very interested in hearing from you all about this -- particularly spotters. If you could email me [email protected] including a phone number, I'd be very grateful.

Best wishes

Ian

[BOAC]

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=282264

[unablereqnavperf]

Your about 5 years late with this story anyhow I don't think this is something the public needs to know about, do you?

[easyprison]

Hi Ian. Nice piece you did on pilot fatigue investigation.

[aviate1138]

Frankly I don't need any journo to tell me anything about any terrorist measure. I hope our Government will quietly and thoroughly do its job and I wish 24 hour news coverage had never been produced. Why do we need to know about anything to do with our protection/Armed Forces etc. It used to really annoy me to see some idiot journo standing near Brize Norton? counting off the heavily laden B-52's and telling the entire world about it! Nothing has changed has it?
Aviate 1138

[akerosid]

Ian, I'll email you directly with some comments on this.

I think it is a very good idea, personally, although unfortunately, it's applied inconsistently. All enthusiasts - and indeed, anyone using an airport - should be on guard/alert at all times for suspicious activity. The problem is that whether this approach is taken varies very much from airport to airport. Gatwick, for example is very anti-enthusiast (Heathrow, not much better) and provides absolutely no facilities; the point is that if an airport provides a vantage point where all wishing to watch acft can congregate, it cuts down on the number of people seeking various different nooks and crannies around the airport, which in turn contributes to suspicion.

Naturally, authorities are keen to be seen taking a tough line in the event of a serious terrorist threat, but it can be far more effective to engage the Mk 1 brain first and make sure that all possible assets (including enthusiasts) that can be used to provide info and prevent an attack are foiled. Making life as difficult as possible for enthusiasts, while also expecting them to co-operate doesn't seem like particularly good psychology; it's all take and no give.

[Ron & Edna Johns]

You've GOT to be kidding.....

Professional airline and airport workers are now treated with suspicion and contempt. They are not permitted to take water to work. Not permitted to take a normal tube of toothpaste airside. Food is confiscated daily. Belts off, hats off, shoes off, epaulettes off. These workers are humiliated daily and treated as the potential enemy. Yet THESE frontline people are the ones who should be encouraged and brought onside to be the eyes and ears. And it isn't happening. People are angry and alienated. Most are downtrodden, heads down, stay down. Few speak up and question a security anomalies anymore - they just end up being threatened with their job for bucking the system and not setting a good example!

So what do "the authorities" want to do now? Get complete outsiders, "spotters", to be the eyes and ears? To be the "home army"?

Humiliate the Captain, recruit the amateur. Does anyone see something very very sick with the system here?

[Sean Dell]

So - how about it Ian

A story on how p1$$ed off flight crew are at the way they are treated by the Muppets in security. There's an accident waiting to happen!

[bjcc]

Nice idea, but would it work?

Answer? Well, they had an opportunity in the 90's and the 'spotters' failed.

Those peace loving people from an Island not far from the West Coast dug a big hole and filled it will mortar tubes, right next to where the spotters congregate. The result, spotters didn't notice.

End result a series of load bangs and 3 flew over the perrimeter fence. Luckily, nothing went bang when it landed.

The UK had been a target for Irish terrorism for years. The mortar episode wasn't the first go at LHR, and in none of the previous attacks (Car bombs in car parks as I recall) did spotters help in any way shape or form.

In fact after the mortar attacks, they still invaded LHR daily, meaning we had to divert resources to deal with them as well as everything else.

In short, it's a nice theory, but reality doesn't support it. Given the amount of extra police time and effort put in to deal with them verus the lack of result, is it worth the effort in administering it? No.

[Avman]

Answer? Well, they had an opportunity in the 90's and the 'spotters' failed.


Very unfair comment bjcc. Firstly, neither the public nor the government were on terror alert at the level which we have experienced since 911. It may be argued that they should have been,but they weren't. Secondly, during those times the spotters still enjoyed the use of a dedicated viewing area which was nowhere near where the missiles were launched. And lastly, was this not a night attack? If so, that's when the spotters knock off and the police should be making more regular checks. Of course, I'm simplifying it greatly in this short answer, but I feel that your response was not objective.

[haughtney1]

Very unfair comment bjcc

Plus avman...as you know..a copper is NEVER off duty:hmm:

I'd much rather see a good investigative piece on how crews are treated..(not that we are above security/suspicion)..and the missed opportunity to include us as part of the team, rather than the threat.

[bjcc]

Avman

I don't accept what you call a lack of objectivity. Yes, my reply was tongue in cheek to a large extent, but the message remains valid.

However, answering your points.

Yes, the UK was on 'terror alert' to what extent, I can't recall. However the site in question was the second and went off over 24 hour after the first. So whatever level had been in place, was upped.

You are correct, the mortars from this site were fired at night. BUT that isn't when they were planted. Which was very much during the day, and in full view of the spotters, but who noticed nothing at all.

There was no dedicated viewing area at the time, QB having been closed for some time by then.

In the 11 years I was stationed at LHR, I cannot remember one instance of a spotter calling police for anything suspect. But, I can remember a lot of calls from airport staff about suspect objects and people, including in places where spotters had been, and apparently ignored it.

Again, I go back to the point I made, that we had been the subject of attacks from Irish Terrorism for years in the UK, and in spite of that, and Heathrow having been a target before, spotters provided nothing useful.

On the other hand, spotters did take up a great deal of time, both before and after the closure of QB.

The issues about parking in front of crash gates and RVP entrances remained about the same as before. As did the assumed rights of spotters to park in buisness premises on the East side, and tell the people that should be able to park there to Fox Oscar.

They didn't worry at all before after QB closed about dumping thier cars in say Emery Airfrieght and wandering off, leaving them blocked in. I could go on and on about it, but suffice to say that having seen it from the other side, the effect of them being there is way out of proportion to a preceived advantage.

[Skipness One Echo]

Bit harsh there mate. Stationed at LHR for eleven years? Shows!

I'm just back from Glasgow where the Police were courteous and friendly as were the BAA Security chaps. No problems taking pictures at the fence or the gates. Appreciated.
We have a good relationship with the airport authority and so long as we don't park at the crash gates or damage the fence, they seem happy enough to have us about. If I did see anyone behaving suspiciously, I would phone the Police as would any of my other "spotter" friends.
Let's be honest, the link between unnecessary harassment of aircrew in search is not directly linked to plane spotters!
Also there are I'm sure a number of your colleagues in ATC who would disagree with such bitterness I'm sure.

[bjcc]

Skipness One Echo



You would phone police if you saw someone/thing suspicious, great, why do you need a spotter watch for others to do it? Which is my point, why have a spotterwatch for the obvious?

You don't park in front of crash gates etc, again, great, but if only everyone did that! But no form of spotterwatch is going to stop it.

I have no objection to spotters, well apart from one bus spotter but thats a different story. What I do object to, and so did many other police officers at LHR was the way they acted, most of which was against common sense as well as legislation. As a result of which, the amount of time we had to spend dealing with them was high. That time could and would have been better spent.

And because they acted in the way they did, they all get tarred that way. It was probably for that reason the BAA always wanted spotters removed. Once outside the airport fence, eg Myrtle Ave, thats fine. But that is the point where they could have proved thier worth, and didn't.

As I said at the begining, its a nice theory, that shouldn't be needed, in that its a public duty to report anything suspicious anyway, but even if in place, will it achieve anything? No, I'm sorry I don't think it will.

[tacr2man]

I would have thought anything that leads to people being stood around near airports, for what ever reason would add to security risk, and the more of them ''authorised'' would lead to a complacency assessment build up.
A ''spotter'' stood at a perimeter fence with a long lense camera one day could be stood there with a surface to air device the next.

This is obviously a extreme scenario , but I hope you get my drift ?

[verticalhold]

I only hope that security at Tees can charm the spotters into working for/with them.

As a recent victim of the security mindset there I find it laughable that they are now relying on spotters, probably as a result of them alienating crews.

On departure we were wondering how much cash we could get selling the place to the French as a nuclear test site.

Oddly enough recently Tees has been the airport I have heard most complaints about. Especially the security staff.

If the Tees Airport boss would like to PM me I'd be delighted to talk to him. The airport has received several complaints from our company and not responded to any of them.

VH

[eastern wiseguy]

BJCC wrote
Those peace loving people from an Island not far from the West Coast dug a big hole and filled it will mortar tubes, right next to where the spotters congregate. The result, spotters didn't notice.
Apparently neither did PLOD!!
The mortar episode wasn't the first go at LHR, and in none of the previous attacks (Car bombs in car parks as I recall)
See above
I am not a spotter just a guy froman Island not far from the West Coast and we were on quite a serious "terror watch" on a daily basis.:hmm:

[Skipness One Echo]

The BAA need to keep spotters out of Heathrow as there's not enough room for the passengers, never mind meeters and greeters and spotters.
However if there was, and this is my serious point for a minute, the Police would be able to point people in the direction of a designated viewing area and people would be able to enjoy a little time at the airport, in the open air and away from the juvenile petty hassle that is what passes for aviation in this country.
BJCC - I hear what you're saying and you make a good point as there are some proper idiot spotters however there are a few good uns too. Much like the Police oddly enough.......

[Avman]

A ''spotter'' stood at a perimeter fence with a long lense camera one day could be stood there with a surface to air device the next.

I think there's a subtle obvious and noticeable difference between the two. What a pathetic statement.

[In Tiffanys trousers]

Really can't see the problem with spotters assisting / doing the security. After all they will have had just as much training for the job as the current lot of job's worth's, and probably as much common sense.
Security checks, ID cards were really just a waste of time, so why not have all and sundry.
Be assured that Mr Shoesmith is not interested in doing an article as to why the people who have been in the industry for years, and are responsible, are peed off. No sensation there.
Could he possibly explain why removing my contact lense fluid from my flight case makes me safe to fly an aircraft with 60 odd tonnes of fuel on board over central London an hour or so later. No.
Not really Mr Shoesmiths problem, but when are those useless so and so's at BALPA going to get off there collective backsides and do something about it. Short and long answers... never. To politically sensitive to get involved with, might make the rise to an MEP a bit difficult.
Then better stop the membership me thinks, waste of money

[DFC]

If my memory serves me correctly, one of the Mortar attacks on LHR took place from the car park of a well known adjacent hotel. The Police, Spotters and Hotel Staff not spot anything.

As for the terrorists, I believe that History records that they came from Northern Ireland which is part of the UK, their beef was with a administration that had invaded their patch and limited their religious, cultural and personal freedoms.

Thus we had UK home grown terrorists, acting against the UK establishment because they had invaded somewhere in the past and pi$$ed the locals off.

Anything new today?.........Other than the "must be sen to be doing something" attitude?

The whole public has a requirment to report possible unlawfull activity. Simply reminding a part of the community of their obligations and getting them onside can not be seen in a negative way can it?

Don't forget that MI5 and MI6 were founded by an Irishman...Not from Northern Ireland but from Kerry!!!

Regards,

DFC

[Ranger 1]

I agree Avman, especially when a new face turns up near a regular group of enthusiats, the first thing thats noticed is that they are new, & if they are really up to speed with the latest in whats going on, as its in their nature usually to to find out whats new on a strangers patch, as regards aircraft etc etc.
Where I work all the regular enthusiasts are known to the Police & have been briefed & no doubt checked out by them, also they have been told what to look out for & the steps to take, if suspicious of anyone or anything.
from what I have been told the last meeting held was well attended by the enthusiasts (Spotters).:ok:

[El Grifo]

Just remember. It was Spotters who logged and catalogued the illegal US rendition flights all over Europe. Flights whose existence was totally denied from all quarters.

A lot of sharp and informed people occupy the ranks of the spotters.

More power to their elbows.

[bjcc]

AVMan
To be fair, while there are differences, would the public know? Possibly not, have a look at some of the bigger Canon Lenses in the 600mm bracket.
Yes, an ex mil person would probably know, so would a photographer who was into very large lenes, but avarage punter? Doubt it.
From what I recall being near the fence with a SAM isn't a problem, it wouldn't have time to fuse before it hit, if it could hit at that range, it's someone in one of the parks a couple of miles out thats the worry on that one.

El G
Yes, and while they are looking inside the world could end around them, they'd not notice, as experience shows.

DFC, correct attack 1 did come from the car park of a hotel, nothing was noticed, because the drove into the car park, parked and left a few minutes before it went off. All parties are currently doing time for it. The spotter community would not have been of any use there anyway, as its not a place the airport can be seen properly, a pub and police Station being in the way.

As for the Irish history lesson, it's not quite accurate.

[interpreter]

The Achilles heal in security is down route - the Malagas, Pahos's, Corfus of this world. Locations where British aircraft fly in and out of regularly where the airport security may leave something to be desired and where the perimeter watch is near non-existent.

I flew BA out of Paphos in 2005 and as we went through the metal detecting frame the two "security" staff were laughing and joking and not looking at the machine at all! It is the poor crew - who depend on good passenger security, apron security and perimeter security - :(that I feel for.

El Al were lucky in Mombasa. We mustn't have another such incident.

[kingair9]

El Al were lucky in Mombasa. We mustn't have another such incident.


I know what you mean and agree with you but just for good order's sake: It was ARKIA, not El Al.

[Sobelena]

Not one myself, but spotters are here to stay. In any case why should they be prevented from the freedom of pursuing their perfectly harmless hobby. Whilst, as in ANY security measures taken, they may not be a 100% deterent, I see no harm in taking them on board as an extra set of eyes. As for those of you suggesting that a long lens may resemble a missile launcher, I think you're imagination is getting the better of you. Finally, if a terrorist is armed with a half decent ground-to-air piece of equipment, he doesn't need to use it next to the perimeter fence. 3 to 4 miles on the approach will do just fine. Have any of you anti brigade read about the excellent scheme operating at some of the major Canadian airports?

[PaperTiger]

I see no harm in taking them on board as an extra set of eyes. As for those of you suggesting that a long lens may resemble a missile launcher, I think you're imagination is getting the better of you. Finally, if a terrorist is armed with a half decent ground-to-air piece of equipment, he doesn't need to use it next to the perimeter fence. 3 to 4 miles on the approach will do just fine. Have any of you anti brigade read about the excellent scheme operating at some of the major Canadian airports?How do you judge the Canadian schemes to be excellent - have they caught any terrorists yet ?

While most of what bjcc has posted is tripe of the first order, I have to agree with his basic premise: most spotters wouldn't know a terrorist if one bit them in the @ss. For a start they are generally looking the wrong way, and they would probably just end up reporting the suspicious individuals who appear whenever an airplane with a blue 6-pointed star on its tail is due :E .

Seems to me the only "benefit" of this is to get an ID card which allows the plod to check you out in fairly short order. Most plods anyway :oh:

[Sobelena]

How do you judge the Canadian schemes to be excellent - have they caught any terrorists yet ?

That was "excellent" in terms of initiative. I don't think that "catching" terrorists is part of the scheme. Reporting suspicious activity quickly to the right authority is the key goal. I believe in fact that at one of the airports the local spotters were once responsible in reporting some sort of criminal activity which resulted in arrests and convictions. I'll have to try and dig that out somewhere.

[BigEndBob]

Any suspicious activity should be reported, never mind any that might be spotted by plane spotters.
But what is suspicious activity.
I had some Asians park their van on three consecutive nights at the back of my house which is a dark off road parking area.
After some banging about in the back of the van they left in seperate cars only to return half hour later and drive the van off.
So whats that all about.

[clicker]

What some people forget is that when you ring the airport to report something suspect you have to get past the switchboard operator, that's assuming you have time to wait for the "Push 1 for Fred, Push 2 for Harry" dialog. :E

[cribble]

:rolleyes:Will we get gold stars to sew on our anoraks?

[Avman]

People, you mock!

However without meaning to insult the vast majority there would be a small minority who might be transformed into Officer Dufuss at the slightest hint of any semi official status...just my opinion

Yep, I agree that's a possibility. But you get more than your job's worth from a host of (non-spotter) idiots in and around airports now. However, the idea of the scheme as I understand it is that it is not for the AIRPORT WATCH (spotters) to challenge or control the public. It is for them to report anything they deem suspicious to airport police/security.

What some people forget is that when you ring the airport to report something suspect you have to get past the switchboard operator, that's assuming you have time to wait for the "Push 1 for Fred, Push 2 for Harry" dialog.

I acknowledge that this is said tongue-in-cheek. Nevertheless, again it must be said that the scheme ensures that the AIRPORT WATCHERS have direct telephone access to police/security.

[PaperTiger]

Telegraph article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/18/nplane118.xml
Some brilliant quotes in there, tee-hee :D

[Avman]

Quotes from a misinformed public which has been fed misleading info by the press. It is not the intention that the airport watch team challenge any suspicious person or persons, nor that they in any way challenge, control or "police" members of the public. They have NO powers whatsoever. They are simply asked to observe and if they see anything suspicious, report their sightings to the responsible authority. Will they in their "enthusiasm" over react from time to time? Quite possibly yes. But no more than the ignorant public react to spotters around an airport (especially in paranoid USA). Will this scheme be totally effective in combatting terrorism? No, absolutely not. Nor are all the other existing farcical security measures presently in place!

[ShotOne]

sounds like a very good idea to use this resource. Pity the authorities are so negative about an even more vital and useful security resource, that of the flight crews themselves. Rather than work with this group, they are intent on treating them in the most awkward, humiliating and obstructive manner possible