Sun journo sneaks fake 'bomb' into LCY airport

[goofyprune]

SUN man Brian Flynn stands on the runway of a major UK airport with a “bomb” — exposing the lax security that could put passengers at risk of a terror attack.

Our reporter — posing as a workman — was able to pose unchallenged with a fake explosive alongside passenger jets and fuel tanks.









Despite the busy international airport being a prime al-Qaeda terror target, no one CHECKED his identity, ASKED who he worked for, or SEARCHED his hired van — which could have been packed with explosives.

It would have been easy to plant a bomb on jets from airlines including British Airways, or blow up an explosive-filled van.

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00433/flynn_1_384x180_433314a.jpg Unchallenged ... Sun man Brian leaves the security station



A worker revealed: “Security at the airport is a joke.
"Armed police patrol the terminal, yet it’s easy to get on the runway and next to planes unchallenged.”
Our devastating expose will stun airport security chiefs at London City Airport — just three miles from the potential terror target of Canary Wharf.

Every year, more than 2.9 million passengers use the airport, which has a VIP terminal for private jets of the rich and famous.

Our reporter and photographer posed as workmen, wearing hard hats and orange jackets bought cheaply from a workwear shop. They hired a white van and attached a magnetic flashing yellow light, bought for £40.
An easily-faked white plastic contractor’s pass carries no name, and has no hologram or barcode to prevent forgery.

Our team approached the airport’s double barrier at 11.05pm.


http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00433/flynn_4_384x180_433336a.jpg Joy ride ... pair pass unprotected aircraft unchallenged




During operational hours, all workers are supposed to show photo ID, such as a passport, with every vehicle being searched.

But at night, procedures are relaxed, and only spot checks are carried out.
Our team wrote their names on a signing-in sheet. Staff did not demand ID, ask our men who they worked for, or even what they were there to do.



Staff are supposed to fill in the name of their employer — but our man left the spot blank.
Guards never asked to search inside the Ford Connect van. Instead, our men jumped in their van as the inner barrier was raised with no questions asked — and drove unescorted on to the runway apron.


They passed giant tanks holding aircraft fuel, and then pulled on to the floodlit strip alongside passenger aircraft parked at terminal gates.

Our reporter then got out with a fake bomb, to pose alongside the line of unattended passenger jets.


After 20 minutes wandering around the runway area unchallenged, the pair climbed into the van and drove away. At the security gate, they waved as the barriers were lifted to let them out.
Our investigation was sparked after construction workers revealed the lax security standards.

One builder said many of those working on the site had criminal records for violence and theft — even though they are supposed to undergo checks.



He said: “It is ludicrous how easily someone can get on the runway.

“You could easily walk up to a plane without anyone suspecting anything and put a bomb on it to be detonated when it takes off.

“If a terrorist planted a bomb on a plane and blew it up as it passed over London, the consequences do not bear thinking about.”


Our source told how security staff had lost track of so many passes that they have barely any left.

He said: “Security just wave you through. I once drove on to the runway with a mate in the passenger seat and no one asked who he was.

“It’s incredible that vehicles are not checked when you think how much explosive you could pack into a van and the devastation it could cause at an airport.


“Many of the workers are foreign, so without any checks a terrorist could get in.”
The airport was bought for £700million in 2006 by a US consortium called American International, Credit Suisse and GE Infrastructure.
An airport spokeswoman last night said changes had been implemented after a review of security.
She said: “You should not have been able to get on to the site and approach the aircraft.
"We take security very seriously and have carried out a review as a result of this.”

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00433/flynn_2_180x250_433315a.jpg Fake ... our man's 'bomb'



But the spokeswoman denied our “bomb” could have caused damage.

She said: “It is unlikely that anything left behind would have gone undetected as the airfield and aircraft are swept each morning by airport security and police.
"We don’t believe there was any risk to passengers, staff, crew or the aircraft.”

The security shambles is the latest to be exposed by The Sun.

Reporter Anthony France smuggled a bomb on to a plane at Birmingham International Airport in 2004.
Also in 2004, Defence Editor Tom Newton Dunn smuggled an eight-inch knife on to a BA flight from Kuwait to Heathrow.

[hippotamus]

I really hope that they press criminal charges against these "journalists". I read threads on here about genuine workers suffering all kinds of unreasonable crap just to get to work and then you see threads like these..................

[meaw]

Hippopotamus,

I thinks that you are missing the point.The ones that should get arrested are the one's in charge of security not the one pointing out the very obvious defects of the system.

[fyrefli]

I really hope that they press criminal charges against these "journalists". I read threads on here about genuine workers suffering all kinds of unreasonable crap just to get to work and then you see threads like these...

Er, why, exactly? Whilst I don't have much time for The Sun and would generally find the word "journalist" when used in conjunction a bit of a misnomer, these people have highlighted a real security issue instead of the largely for show crap that passengers and crew are subjected to on a daily basis.

[Skipness One Echo]

Looks like they've done a good turn in the public interest here. As a user of LCY I am not impressed, especially as they always have a "show" of four gun toting plods in the Terminal intimidating the Hell out of me...( I'm sorry but honestly that's how it makes me feel as they stand slouched at the top of the stairs glowering at passengers ). What a bloody pantomime. Surely a prosecution of gross negligence is possible?

Not often I say well done The Sun !

[suppie]

Damn looks like a hypo to do these kind of things....same happened at AMS airport...they even filmed the whole thing

[UP and Down Operator]

It just proves how useless and ridicules this whole security farce is. They treat those that have undergone thoroughly security checks before even offerede a job airside as terorrists, and then lets everybody else do what they want :ugh::ugh::ugh: Unfortunately we see it on a daily basis, so my regards to the journalists that finally manage to put some focus on the daft and useless "security". Well done :D

[darrylj]

quite often my tug gets through airside security without even being searched!.
they are too busy in conversation to be bothered.

worrying.

[Maude Charlee]

I bet he wouldn't have got airside with a bottle of water, or a non-regulation bag with his toiletries in it though. :E

[wilyflier]

Like terrorist activities this sort of rubbish should not ever have been publicised. The original perpetrators should have been "disappeared" without trace. leaving idiot journalists to take the same risk. We have quite enough cost and hassle as it is,think of the extra opportunities you publicise. I Fly.

[Witraz]

I wonder how the headlines will read one day if one of these smart reporters gets shot, trying this..................

[fyrefli]

Like terrorist activities this sort of rubbish should not ever have been publicised.

What, sort of like on the principle that if they'd just told the airport about it, it would have been sorted out? Oink, oink, flap ;)

The original perpetrators should have been "disappeared" without trace. leaving idiot journalists to take the same risk.

What, the idiot perpetrators that drove straight back out again with a cheery wave?

We have quite enough cost and hassle as it is,think of the extra opportunities you publicise.

Thanks but, like many, it's not the Mr Bean wing of Convenient Bogeymen Inc. that have me concerned; anyone with an ounce of sense tries to work out and protect against the next attack, not the last one. Making airports face up to their genuine weaknesses by publicising them is fine by me.

[Runway 31]

In todays Scottish edition of the Sun they have done the same at Inverness.

[HZ123]

I believe that LCY operates a two scale system so that during the flying period it operates an RZ but outside of those hours it is merely a CZ only requiring random checks of ID badges. All aircraft must be searched or sealed if present during the change from one zone to another. It highlights once again what most of us are only to aware of in the airport industry that many of the security operatives are not managed nor supervised well enough. The Dft must also take the blame for this only conducting tests normally during office hours (the staff being civil servants). As for the armed Police they have little input into the airport security and are merely there to deal with the possible armed attack. Unless they observe the punters they are not much use looking away and I am sure they are not trying to intmidate anyone they are probably bored. Considering the location, the fact that the average pax earns in excess of £85000 it is most unsatisfactory.

[PAXboy]

from the reportBut the spokeswoman denied our “bomb” could have caused damage.

She said: “It is unlikely that anything left behind would have gone undetected as the airfield and aircraft are swept each morning by airport security and police. "We don’t believe there was any risk to passengers, staff, crew or the aircraft.” So ... each aircraft that has been on the stand overnight is swept inside and out? They say that they are sealed at changeover from RZ to CZ but I just don't believe it.

A report in the STN thread reports that someone who had used fake ID to get a job there as a cleaner was jailed. No mention of the people who ACCEPTED the fake ID. This is the same story. Complacency and money being saved on hiring people who understand what security really means.

[nclops]

Considering the location, the fact that the average pax earns in excess of £85000 it is most unsatisfactory.

What does the fact the average pax earns in excess of £85000 have to do with it. Surely its a serious breach of security and whether the pax earns £85000 a year or collects £50 from the dole office each week is neither here nor there! :ugh:

[cwatters]

But the spokeswoman denied our “bomb” could have caused damage. She said: “It is unlikely that anything left behind would have gone undetected as the airfield and aircraft are swept each morning by airport security and police.

Yeah right, is that what the spokeswoman really believes? What about the sack of sugar they tipped in a fuel tank or ... Pity the Sun didn't leave something behind.

[manrow]

Come on guys lets be realistic, 100% security is impossible.

An idiot journalist is likely to be able to do this almost anywhere, and achieves nothing other than hand wringing on here about who should or should not be 'blamed' for the security breakdown!

Compare this to the recent crash of a B777 at Heathrow, likely to be caused by something no-one had foreseen; this happens in security too.

I once heard security described as 3 brick walls all built parallel to one another and all having some holes in them; when the holes line up you have potential for a disaster.

The best thing we could be doing is condemning the idiot newspaper who set out to prove this complacency, as it encourages others to have a go, including real terrorists. If you want to help the enemy then keep publicising idiotic stunts like this one.

[Flying Binghi]

Some in the media seem to have it in for aviation.

They could have gone down to the local bus depo and put half a dozen of the fake bombs on buses. Six buses full of pax is a good plane load.

[HZ123]

Manrow is right and anyway many of us only value our life to the tune of the cheapest ticket avaible. We leave the important processes to others to worry about. My reference tp earnings is that you perhaps might expect higher standard anyway than the rest. We are hopefully not paying those on the dole / social to take flights are we.

[A and C]

What I find tragic is that "security" take so much trouble making the lives of pepole with years of track record in the industry unplesant (Engineers, ATCO's & flight crew) and let contractors in without so much as a second glance!

All thos proves to me is that all this "security" is just about protecting the goverment from fleet street.......................... and it's not even doing that very well!!!!!

Perhaps it is time to think about spending a little more time checking the less well known workers and little less time removing yougut from Engineers lunch boxes, for the mentaly challenged of the security I should point out this is called effective use of manpower avalable.

Now that this has happend and the security industry can't get back at The Sun I just fear the backlash on airport staff from the "security" numptys.

[No_Speed_Restriction]

Surely, with the nationwide implementation of the newly adopted Shariah law, acts like this will be a thing of the past... then again....:ugh:

[FlyZB]

manrow, I couldn't agree more. If a terrorist wants to achieve something destructive on a large scale, then they will find a way through regardless of how many security checks are in place. All airport security can do is make it as difficult as possible but it can never be a 100% deterrant.

Maybe the Sun newspaper truly feels deep down that they are doing some good by highlighting this but in reality all they are achieving is adding more fear to the travelling public whilst giving would-be terrorists some extremely useful insight into how to get around security checks :ugh:

[No_Speed_Restriction]

what insight. all they did was effectively walk through the security checkpoints. security in airports is merely a cosmetic presence.

[airtags]

as a journalist (in my recent former pre-flying life) let me say that this is not the work of a professional journalist but rather that of a tabloid sensationalist. If he was a professional the power and indeed the real story would have been not focussing on the stunt itself but rather the response of the authorities and the resultant remedies.

I was taught to paint the picture factually, check the detail and test the evidence - go through the 'who, what where, how, why stages - and in the case of inequity, negligence or misconduct to seek a remedy....this kind of reporting jumps straight to the 'wtf' stage and proffers or solicits no remedy..it just gets bogged down in its own self applause.

What's the point of having bitch about a problem if you don't draw a line to the solution.

[Maude Charlee]

Forgive me for laughing, but somehow I don't see Bin Laden sitting in his cave with his cronies reading the Sun and exclaiming "By Allah's beard! So that's how it's done!!! If only we had thought to impersonate the Village People, we would have brought the infidels to their knees."

The Islamic fundamentalist terrorists with whom the West is currently utterly preoccupied to the exclusion of almost every other threat, are far more canny and devious, not to mention dedicated, than a coffee-swilling, chain-smoking hack from the British gutter press.

They are several steps ahead of the great minds of the Sun, and I very much doubt this publicity stunt has given them any insight whatsoever into security anywhere. :rolleyes:

[Self Loading Freight]

Airtags - the 'what happens next' story is indeed the more important part. There's also a principle that journalists should report, not become, the story. And "What's the point of having bitch about a problem if you don't draw a line to the solution" is not the journalists' responsibility, that's for the editor to sort out in op-ed.

None of that invalidates what these journalists did. The story so far is that security at the smaller airports is inadequate, and that's a good story. It's safe to say that if the Sun journos could find this out, so could others. It's also safe to say that it's better to embarrass the authorities into action before there's a body count, and it's not responsible to rely on change happening without one of these two motivators.

I've seen this at first hand, with computer security on a large public system containing a great deal of confidential commercial and personal data. We were a small bunch of very young tech hacks, and we discovered a huge flaw which left the whole thing open. We told the security manager on the system, who didn't seem interested. We told the boss of the whole enterprise, who didn't even acknowledge it. The flaw remained.

So we went public. It made the front pages and the six o'clock news, and the problem got fixed. Two of my pals also got arrested (in armed raids, yet. Embarrassing the authorities is not a risk-free business) and charged, and the course of that particular case resulted in a new act of Parliament that, for the first time, brought computer access into the law. Did we act responsibly? Would this have happened if we'd kept quiet?

Proper security is hard, and perfect security is impossible. That doesn't excuse incompetence. As other threads have shown, the state of non-pax security in the UK is woeful. Given what other threads have said about aircrew ID checks, it would have been too wonderful, and not impossible, for one of the Sun hacks to have been asked to escort a pilot to their aircraft.

What's needed is a proper inspectorate of airport security, with one person in charge of the whole business, clear lines of responsibility and a proper reporting mechanism for problems. (I hate advocating more bureaucracy; if done properly, there should be far less.) More than the whole population of the UK passes through UK airports every year: security for these people doesn't just depend on the staff on the ground, but in the machinery that co-ordinates them. I don't think that machinery is even coherent: do the people who set the rules know what conditions are like on the ground for those who have to implement them?

I couldn't agree more that almost nothing is worse than having to cope with the aftermath of a publicity stunt conducted by a bunch of tabloid hacks - except having to cope with the aftermath of a publicity stunt conducted by a bunch of terrorists.

R

[norsman07]

these people have highlighted a real security issue instead of the largely for show crap that passengers and crew are subjected to on a daily basis.

Something tells me that you wouldn't be saying that if a pax said as you were cruising at 33,000 ft ''I have a b**b.'' How 'for show crap' would it be then. And that's what a lot of you guys forget. It might be a pain when going to work, it could inconvenience you, but it's better than the alternative. Remember the London airport - name that escapes me - where a staff member was in league with a now convicted terrorist.

[slip and turn]

The multi-layered onion of security often fails at the front door.

That VIP James Robertson Justice showed it back in 1961 in Black and White and Matt Damon as Jason Bourne wouldn't have a movie without it, let alone three - it's the oldest trick in the book, isn't it?

I am sure it is all under control ... the CIA Substation is only 2 miles from the end of the runway :\

[Jippie]

A dutch journalist found out the same at Schiphol. Not surprising and not unacceptable. 100% safety can only be reached if we stop flying :)

[Skipness One Echo]

100% secure is an unattainable ambition that IS true. However this appears to have uncovered F*** **L % security, which in my view is something of a "could try harder".

[Charlie Roy]

Great, so getting through security this week in LCY will take 2 hours longer than normal, delaying all flights, stessing the passengers and staff :ouch:

[Self Loading Freight]

But the security flaw wasn't in passenger handling. LCY may be quick, but I've no complaints about their thoroughness; I've been better screened there than in any of the busier London airports.

I don't think it's unreasonable to want airside passes inspected properly. Had that been done, then the story would be quite different. If that's sorted out as a result of this, then who's the loser?

R