A stupid TV crew

[scr1]

Defy's belief

Fake-bomb TV crew held at New Jersey airport - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42743829)

Hope they get the book thrown at them

[Airbubba]

This trick has been tried a few times before with a similar result.

CNN 'aviation analyst' 'Scary Mary' Schiavo pulled this stunt at Columbus back in 1999:

Airport-safety Advocate Tied To Bomb Scare

March 14, 1999|By Washington Post

WASHINGTON - A former Transportation Department inspector general is under investigation for allegedly trying to check luggage that contained what appeared to be a disassembled fake bomb, sources said Saturday.

The discovery of the bag Friday night at the Columbus, Ohio, airport led to the evacuation of hundreds of people from a concourse and the closure of one of two runways for four hours, police said.

Mary Schiavo, the former inspector general, left the federal government in 1996. She wrote a best-selling book Flying Blind, Flying Safe that warned of lax aviation safety and appears frequently on television to comment on air safety. In January, on ABC's Good Morning America, she said she had checked ``fake bomb equipment'' at the same airport but ``didn't get it on planes.''

Richard Morgan, director of public safety at Port Columbus International Airport, said the airport was investigating the incident in conjunction with the FBI and the Federal Aviation Administration. Schiavo is ``one of the names mentioned as being involved,'' Morgan said, adding that investigators would interview her. No charges had been filed.

Schiavo was at the airport at the time of the discovery with a film crew from a local TV station, Morgan said.

Frank Scafidi, an FBI spokesman in Washington, said officials were examining what, if any, laws may have been broken. While it is illegal to threaten to bomb a plane or airport, ``absent a threat, there may not be a violation,'' he said.

Schiavo, whose frequent criticism of the FAA has annoyed many U.S. aviation officials, did not return calls left at her home in Columbus.

Morgan and other officials said the bag in question was checked on an America West flight departing for Washington. At about 5 p.m., America West gate agents notified airport police to say they had a bag that, when passed through an X-ray machine, appeared to contain an explosive device. A passenger had checked the bag for the flight but had not boarded the plane, making agents suspicious.

Increasingly, airlines conduct such ``positive bag matches'' to make sure passengers who check bags board planes. But with 2.3 million checked bags a year on domestic flights, it is difficult to do so on every flight.

Eventually, Morgan said, officials decided the situation was so serious that they evacuated the B-concourse - one of three at the airport - and shut down the airport's north runway to have the bag examined at the end of the runway by a team of explosive experts. No bomb was found in the bag, Morgan said, but he would not describe its contents.

Sources familiar with the probe said the bag contained objects that appeared to look like pieces of an ``explosive device.'' Schiavo's name was on the ticket that accompanied the bag, sources said.

Air traffic controllers had to divert planes to the airport's other runway for four hours, Morgan said. ``This caused a disruption,'' he said.

``I don't know if this rises to a violation of the law,'' an official said. ``But something ought to be done about this.''

Airport-safety Advocate Tied To Bomb Scare - tribunedigital-orlandosentinel (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1999-03-14/news/9903140027_1_airport-morgan-bag)

Of course, the perps will inevitably claim that they are journalists exercising their First Amendment rights so they are exempt from airport security laws.

[Basil]

the crew members also faced civil penalties of up to $13,000 (£9,300) for each security violation.
Probably be treated as a small production expense.

[vapilot2004]

While I would not condone the TV crew's attempt at passing a fake bomb, their actions were most likely prompted by leaked classified reports of TSA's repeated failures at detecting bombs, weapons, and explosives during internal testing just last year.

What's more, the agency's own inspector's office has been repeatedly blocked from receiving information that would assist in evaluating the troubled agency. The agency has also been criticized for failing to adapt to threats, leaving expensive programs in place that have little correlation to calculated risk.

[.Scott]

Hope they get the book thrown at them
They should. Their experiment is exactly what terrorists would like to see.
What kind of audience are they targeting?

[.Scott]

What's more, the agency's own inspector's office has been repeatedly blocked from receiving information that would assist in evaluating the troubled agency. The agency has also been criticized for failing to adapt to threats, leaving expensive programs in place that have little correlation to calculated risk.I did some quick Google searches on this. I did not find any references to the DHS OIG being blocked from TSA information.

[vapilot2004]

Well, they have, Mr. Scott.

While TSA cites security concerns regarding the sharing of data with their own OIG, the truth is, in order to guarantee program effectiveness, someone needs to watch the watchers.

I understand the need for secrecy with regards to "the enemy", but hiding failures behind "it's classified" is a tactic that's as old as clandestine work itself. That is not to say critical failures should be made public, but as said above, there needs to be oversight in order to maintain a program's effectiveness.

[.Scott]

Sorry for trying to be subtle. I was not doubting you - I only wanted a citation.

If there is a security concern, I would imagine the problem would be with the originating agencies (CIA, NSA) not the TSA. The sort of sensitive information originating out of the TSA should be easily handled by the DHS OIG.

[galaxy flyer]

Without a doubt, the TSA is among the five worst Federal government ideas.

[vapilot2004]

If there is a security concern, I would imagine the problem would be with the originating agencies (CIA, NSA) not the TSA. The sort of sensitive information originating out of the TSA should be easily handled by the DHS OIG.

Logic suggests this should be true, but the TSA, apparently, is not an agency steeped in logic and reason.

Sorry for trying to be subtle. I was not doubting you - I only wanted a citation.

No worries. A google of TSA and OIG should elicit some public results for your perusal. :ok:

[Longtimer]

One of those arrested said they also hoped to start a panic and film that. Complete disregard of the harm this could have caused. I hope the authorities call it terrorism and throw the book at them.

[jack11111]

Longtimer wrote:

"One of those arrested said they also hoped to start a panic and film that. Complete disregard of the harm this could have caused. I hope the authorities call it terrorism and throw the book at them."

Do you have a source for that?

[Blade Master]

TV crew had a vacuum compression device in their luggage. This machine connects to a plastic air sealable bag containing clothing and pulls a vacuum on it, therefore enabling more clothing to be carried in a suitcase. The actual sequence of events is difficult to discern.

[Old 'Un]

I hope the authorities call it terrorism and throw the book at them.

If not "terrorism", then at least "reckless endangerment" or something similar.

[KiloB]

One of those arrested said they also hoped to start a panic and film that. Complete disregard of the harm this could have caused. I hope the authorities call it terrorism and throw the book at them.
At the very least they should be added to the no-fly list. A previous poster is correct; any find will be paid by the Production Coys petty cash account.

[Heathrow Harry]

"One of those arrested said they also hoped to start a panic and film that"

Justice Holmes famously wrote:-

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.... The question in every case is whether the words used ...create a clear and present danger

[paperHanger]

Book thrown at them? For having something that the security team decided "looked like a bomb"?

Without a threat, I doubt that "having something that someone thinks might be a bomb" is actually an offence ... you are of course quite right that their actions were at least stupid, but I very much doubt they will receive anything more than a few sharp words.

[paperHanger]

If not "terrorism", then at least "reckless endangerment" or something similar.


Again ... endangerment would involve some sort of danger ... I'm pretty sure that having a vacuum cleaner in your bag is not actually dangerous.

[RAT 5]

What has happened to other pax who have claimed, falsely, to have a bomb in their luggage or uttered other provocative statements. They have been removed PDQ and interrogated. What has been the follow up regarding punishment of them. This would seem to fall into the same, or even worse category. I doubt the numpty pax left home with a complete pre-mediated disruption plan; these guys did. If they caused disruption that resulted in delayed flights and other pax missed their connections etc. the lawyers on their behalf would have a field day suing for compensation.

[b1lanc]

Longtimer wrote:

"One of those arrested said they also hoped to start a panic and film that. Complete disregard of the harm this could have caused. I hope the authorities call it terrorism and throw the book at them."

Do you have a source for that?
Tom Carter, TSA’s federal security director for New Jersey, said Friday in a statement. “There is simply no excuse for trying to do something like this knowing it had the great potential to cause panic with the intention of turning that panic into a reality show..."

[b1lanc]

Again ... endangerment would involve some sort of danger ... I'm pretty sure that having a vacuum cleaner in your bag is not actually dangerous.
At least one news source stated - "Port Authority police charged the nine crew members with conspiracy, creating a public false alarm and interference with transportation. Everyone involved was released and are expected to face the charges in Essex County court at a later date." I'd say pulling a false fire alarm would create danger. Don't see this as being much different.

[cee cee]

Nothing about filming in a protected zone? Or entering a protected zone with a false intention (http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/2-arrested-for-misusing-boarding-passes-to-buy-iphone-7-at-changi-airports)?

[infrequentflyer789]

Tom Carter, TSA’s federal security director for New Jersey, said Friday in a statement. “There is simply no excuse for trying to do something like this knowing it had the great potential to cause panic with the intention of turning that panic into a reality show..."

This isn't really a source for the original quote - it does not state that the accused had admitted their intention was to cause and film panic, and could simply be Tom Carter's interpretation of their intent.

TV film crew busted with fake bomb at Newark Airport - NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/tv-film-crew-busted-fake-bomb-newark-airport-article-1.3765467)

Actually has some more details and also contains roughly the original quote, but merely ascribes it to unnamed "sources".

I can believe a TV show trying to test airport security or film TSA reaction, I am not sure I believe a TV show aiming to film a mass panic that they deliberately trigger - I cannot see how you can possibly get broadcastable TV out of it (either you film an orderly evac in which case it's boring, or you film chaos distress and injuries that you have admitted causing on film, which will be way over the line for most viewers and will be perfect evidence to bankrupt you in inevitable lawsuits). But the main thing I can't believe is that anyone could possibly be stupid enough to admit this intention to investigators, or that any lawyer would advise them to do so - unless this is already wrapped up in a plea deal (and the admission is part of that). We'll see.

[HZ123]

Slight aside I was in a major airline for some time in the 90's responsible for the provision/training of screening equipment and subsequent testing. What I find depressing is I see little evidence of much improvement of the equipment and even less in the staff working.

Maybe someone can update me with positive information of improvement?

[vapilot2004]

I believe the real panic the TV crew were attempting to induce involves demonstrated proof of the previously mentioned (classified) TSA test scores, 60 Minutes style. Oh, and obviously, they were betting on getting through with no alarms, no drama.

[b1lanc]

could simply be Tom Carter's interpretation of their intent.

But the main thing I can't believe is that anyone could possibly be stupid enough to admit this intention to investigators, or that any lawyer would advise them to do so - unless this is already wrapped up in a plea deal (and the admission is part of that). We'll see.

To your first point, that could be what TSA is pressing Essex County to look at. Believe 2C:33-3 is one relevant NJ Statute but the wording is open to some interpretation in that did the crew actually initiate a false report or warning. There are False Alarm statues everywhere.

To your second, did they act out of stupidity or with intent to prove a point that's already been publicly proven by other organizations - namely TSA needs some improvement.

Like you say, there's a lot of legal manuevering to come. But, if being filmed for a 'reality' show rather then a news exposé, I'd suspect the intent was not simply to document a weakness.

[.Scott]

Book thrown at them? For having something that the security team decided "looked like a bomb"?

Without a threat, I doubt that "having something that someone thinks might be a bomb" is actually an offence ... you are of course quite right that their actions were at least stupid, but I very much doubt they will receive anything more than a few sharp words.If you were a terrorist group looking to down a plane, your first steps may be to test airport security with non-threatening objects that model your real devices.

How would you suggest we respond when such trials are uncovered?

As I asked before, who were their target audience?

[RAT 5]

This is a major controversial perhaps criminal event. It needs covering by a TV crew, even from the same station. How wonderfully cannibalistic.

[Longtimer]

Longtimer wrote:

"One of those arrested said they also hoped to start a panic and film that. Complete disregard of the harm this could have caused. I hope the authorities call it terrorism and throw the book at them."

Do you have a source for that?

Here you go:
TV crew tries to pass fake bomb through airport security | National Post (http://nationalpost.com/news/tv-crew-attempts-to-pass-fake-bomb-through-airport-security?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NP_Top_Stories+%28National+Post+-+Top+Stories%29)

[infrequentflyer789]

As I asked before, who were their target audience?

Apparently this is the TV show:

"Staten Island Hustle" is set to debut in the spring. It follows a group of friends from the New York City borough looking for "far-fetched" ideas for products and investments

I cannot see how causing a panic and filming it (which they are alleged to have admitted was their intent) can possibly be any sort of product or investment, however far-fetched.

Apparently (according to more recent news articles) the device was supposed to be some sort of vacuum-pack luggage, which presumably shrinks the space your clothes take so you can fit in the vacuum / "bomb" bits. It'll still weigh the same though, or rather it'll weigh more due to the vacuum kit, and weight is kind of important for air travel. So it is far-fetched to the point of being obviously useless, which sounds like it would fit the show rather well.

Another possibility of course is that the "show" is in fact a front for real terrorists doing a test-run. Doubtful, but nonetheless possible.

Either way I still don't see how the "cause panic with the intention of turning that panic into a reality show" fits in, but it must do because obviously the TSA wouldn't be lying to the public...:rolleyes:

[RAT 5]

Either way I still don't see how the "cause panic with the intention of turning that panic into a reality show" fits in, but it must do because obviously the TSA wouldn't be lying to the public...

In house, in studio chat show, or equally stupid game show. Fire alarms sounds plus fake smoke etc. etc. Camera crews at the ready; guests scrambling over the rows of chairs and trampleling all before them. Fire crews attend and are told it is a training scenario. etc. etc. Job done with minimum disruption to general public.

[EEngr]

some sort of vacuum-pack luggage

What is the TSA's procedure when they encounter vacuum-packed items? (Probably classified) Because of the need to re-vacuum the bag, they might be relying on the TSA's hesitancy to unpack for examination items stored using this method. Wave goodbye to that.

[vapilot2004]

What is the TSA's procedure when they encounter vacuum-packed items? (Probably classified) Because of the need to re-vacuum the bag, they might be relying on the TSA's hesitancy to unpack for examination items stored using this method. Wave goodbye to that.

Vacuum sealed clothes bags are allowed but not encouraged. If they alarm, we may need to open them for inspection.



Meanwhile, the producer, Endemol, a (mostly) reality TV program developer based in the Netherlands had this to say:

"On January 18, some cast and crew members of an upcoming series, ‘Staten Island Hustle,’ produced by Left Hook Media and Endemol Shine North America for air on CNBC Primetime, were detained at Newark Airport. The team was producing an episode about a new product, vacuum compression luggage, which allows travelers more room for clothing and has no other intended use. Unfortunately, there appears to have been a misunderstanding, and we regret any inconvenience to TSA and other authorities on the ground for complications that may have been caused.”

Sounds like an after the fact apology from the legal department.

[b1lanc]

The team was producing an episode about a new product, vacuum compression luggage, which allows travelers more room for clothing and has no other intended use.
Let me think about this - 9 men needed to 'market' a new product for use on a reality show - maybe a frequent flyer reality show? Shark tank would have been a better option. Apology leaves a bit to be desired. If that's the best the company can do, I'd guess Endemol has said you guys are pretty much on your own...

[yellowtriumph]

I know that in general TV around the world has reached some pretty low points, but making a reality TV show based around a luggage vacuum device defies any kind of rational logic even in the TV world. I call BS.

[infrequentflyer789]

9 men was the cast and camera crew I think. The "reality" show apparently follows a group of "investors" - I don't think you could make a reality show about a group of people going on Shark Tank, for a start you'd have an argument over which show owns the rights to footage and that's before you get to who controls the script...

The apology just looks like something that's been run through legal first, unlike the script/plan for the show.

The more interesting thing is that if the explanation is correct (and from news photos of the "device" it looks much much more like a pump and vacuum plumbing than a timer / pressure switch and explosive) where the heck did the TSA's statements like "cause panic with the intention of turning that panic into a reality show" come from?

[ImageGear]

I am quite sure that an agency would not differentiate between something seen as a viable device or a device which is benign. The procedures and actions following recognition of a potential threat must be identical.

Post discovery, discussion regarding the intent of the crew becomes academic since it was obviously their intention to deceive at the outset. If it were any individual passenger attempting the same subterfuge, one's feet would not touch the floor.

Embarrassment of a government agency plays no part here, when the crew set out, they very effectively labelled themselves as a legitimate target. The officials are armed and fully aware of potential life threatening encounters. The crew were fortunate not to be taken down.

A period of incarceration for all parties from the top down should be de facto for this idiotic attempt at getting ratings.

[aterpster]

And, place all of them on the no-fly list.