and still they don't get the message!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the main perceived threat is presently from middle eastern organisations
Just because the main threat is from the middle-east don't expect the next attack to be perpertrated by people from the middle east or with ties to the middle-east.
--
Gary.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kelowna Wine Country
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 26 Likes
on
12 Posts
My grandmother used to tell me:
Before the war my grandfather had a boat tailed Ballot. One weekend they had been sailing down at Poole harbour with a friend. On the way back it was chilly so the friend sat up front with my grandfather and my grandmother curled up under the tonneau in the back and went to sleep.
She woke up when they were stopped outside the old Ace of Spades club (where the gas station is now, I worked there for a year, just coincidence.)
After complaining that my grandfather was driving too fast, ( he always did) the policeman asked if there was anything else he should know about.
"Only the old lady's body in the back."
The policeman didn't even look.
Before the war my grandfather had a boat tailed Ballot. One weekend they had been sailing down at Poole harbour with a friend. On the way back it was chilly so the friend sat up front with my grandfather and my grandmother curled up under the tonneau in the back and went to sleep.
She woke up when they were stopped outside the old Ace of Spades club (where the gas station is now, I worked there for a year, just coincidence.)
After complaining that my grandfather was driving too fast, ( he always did) the policeman asked if there was anything else he should know about.
"Only the old lady's body in the back."
The policeman didn't even look.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
timzsta
I think you'll find it's not an offence to make jokes about security. However, it is an offence to make threats or to refuse to co-operate etc. The other thread - about the catering van driver and the reporter - shows there are plenty of laughs to be had on the subject of security. The difficulty comes when someone makes a joke that is taken as a threat. In that case it's understandable that the security officer will want to make sure the joker isn’t really dangerous. But once they had searched the boy and his baggage it must have been obvious to them that he was just a sixteen-year-old who had spoken foolishly.
From reading your letter, I guess that you frequently find yourself the butt of other people's humour. I wonder if you are in the right job. You might find it gratifying when you get a pat on the back from your employer for ruining someone’s holiday but that’s no substitute for job satisfaction.
bealine
"Ensure offender remains in custody long enough to ensure all flights to the required destination have departed for the day!"
That sounds like summary punishment of a minor by a Jobsworth. Then you go on to say that his parents are to blame. So why are you punishing the son?
I think you'll find it's not an offence to make jokes about security. However, it is an offence to make threats or to refuse to co-operate etc. The other thread - about the catering van driver and the reporter - shows there are plenty of laughs to be had on the subject of security. The difficulty comes when someone makes a joke that is taken as a threat. In that case it's understandable that the security officer will want to make sure the joker isn’t really dangerous. But once they had searched the boy and his baggage it must have been obvious to them that he was just a sixteen-year-old who had spoken foolishly.
From reading your letter, I guess that you frequently find yourself the butt of other people's humour. I wonder if you are in the right job. You might find it gratifying when you get a pat on the back from your employer for ruining someone’s holiday but that’s no substitute for job satisfaction.
bealine
"Ensure offender remains in custody long enough to ensure all flights to the required destination have departed for the day!"
That sounds like summary punishment of a minor by a Jobsworth. Then you go on to say that his parents are to blame. So why are you punishing the son?
Guest
Posts: n/a
As a frequent traveller, I find some of the comments on this thread quite scary, as it appears that some posters who work in airport ground ops have difficulty differentiating between the prevention of terrorism and tackling unacceptable social behaviour by pax - two quite different issues.
Reading in between the lines of some of the posts, its apparent that some enjoy the feeling of schadenfreude from this 'payback' given to a 16 yr old who is peceived as being representative of 'arrogant youth', although there is no empircal evidence on the thread that this is the case. Did anyone witness this incident?
But what does this actually achieve in avoiding terrorism? It seems pretty obvious to me that terrorists are trained to keep a low enough profile to achieve their mission and joking about guns at check in is hardly likely to be 'best practice' at any reputable terror training camp.
So hammering a youth who did something stupid doesn't really help the big picture does it?
Taking action to modify the anti social behaviour that is reprehensible is fine in principle, but please don't patronise me by linking it to reducing the likelihood of terrorist action, because I do not buy that.
I fly an average of 4-8 sectors a month and ground ops personnel would do well to bear in mind that people like me are the lifeblood of passenger aviation, through direct airport taxes and also income via the airlines who are the airport users. If we do not feel safe, we will stop travelling and use video or telephone conferencing instead. (It's a poor substitute for being face 2 face, but better than feeling unsafe.)
What I want to see (and will support 100%) is an attitude from all grounds ops personnel that makes a difference to my safety by reducing real risks, such as the ability of unauthorised people to get on to airliners, e.g. EGSS last year, EGKK this year.
I've been spot checked three times this year already and accept this with good grace, as I'm a single man travelling alone and understand the concept of profiling and the reasons for it.
But chucking a kid off a charter flight gives me little comfort, no matter how much ground ops people find it appealing and it is really scary that the fuss caused could let the quiet, respectable, bad guy slip through un-noticed.
Reading in between the lines of some of the posts, its apparent that some enjoy the feeling of schadenfreude from this 'payback' given to a 16 yr old who is peceived as being representative of 'arrogant youth', although there is no empircal evidence on the thread that this is the case. Did anyone witness this incident?
But what does this actually achieve in avoiding terrorism? It seems pretty obvious to me that terrorists are trained to keep a low enough profile to achieve their mission and joking about guns at check in is hardly likely to be 'best practice' at any reputable terror training camp.
So hammering a youth who did something stupid doesn't really help the big picture does it?
Taking action to modify the anti social behaviour that is reprehensible is fine in principle, but please don't patronise me by linking it to reducing the likelihood of terrorist action, because I do not buy that.
I fly an average of 4-8 sectors a month and ground ops personnel would do well to bear in mind that people like me are the lifeblood of passenger aviation, through direct airport taxes and also income via the airlines who are the airport users. If we do not feel safe, we will stop travelling and use video or telephone conferencing instead. (It's a poor substitute for being face 2 face, but better than feeling unsafe.)
What I want to see (and will support 100%) is an attitude from all grounds ops personnel that makes a difference to my safety by reducing real risks, such as the ability of unauthorised people to get on to airliners, e.g. EGSS last year, EGKK this year.
I've been spot checked three times this year already and accept this with good grace, as I'm a single man travelling alone and understand the concept of profiling and the reasons for it.
But chucking a kid off a charter flight gives me little comfort, no matter how much ground ops people find it appealing and it is really scary that the fuss caused could let the quiet, respectable, bad guy slip through un-noticed.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 47
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harpy
Read my post properly. I did not say it is an offence to make jokes about security. I said it is the law that security questions have to be complied with.
I get immense satisfaction from my job. And why? Because I when I go to work I do my job with the utmost professionalism. I take no risks, safety of the aircraft and passengers comes first and foremost. As people in the military (where I come from) often say "I will not let it happen on my watch" and I dont. An occurence, which I will explain, has shapped me on that. I will explain at the end.
I remind you it is a legal requirement laid down by the Department of Transport that passengers comply with security questions. Those who do not are subject to extra security or removal from the flight.
Lets just take a look from another angle. Lets just say that a journalist had put this 16 year old up to it. His comments are ignored because "oh he is just a silly little kid playing a joke, he doesnt know any better". Next morning front page of the tabloids "AIRLINE STAFF IGNORE PASSENGER SAYING HE HAS A GUN". Then the same people who are slagging of JMC would be still slagging them off for lax security.
With regard to the incident at Gatwick lets remind ourself that the journalist got access because the truck driver breached security procedures and the security staff breached procedures. I hope they all get the sack. I dont breach security procedures - I follow them to the letter of law because if I dont I could lose my job or even worse be held responsible for an aviation disaster and spend my days in prison.
Let us remind ourselves with regard to the journalist who got a job at Stansted falsified his references to enable him to get the job - again an offence. When I started at Buzz two people on my course were booted out on day three when it was discovered they had supplied false references, so I can assure you the holes are not as gaping as the journalists would have you believe.
And so to the incident that has shapped me on the issue of by the book:
Mid March 2000 I was still in the Navy. I was serving as a Fighter Controller and Officer of the Watch on HMS Exeter, a Type 42 destroyer. We were off NW Spain heading NE, two days to go to Portsmouth at the end of a six month Gulf deployment. It was 2 am in the morning, weather was choppy sea state 5, steaming at 18 knots. It was a dark night. A small flashing light passed down the port side, very close, spotted as it passed the bow by me and quartermaster. We turned to each other and said "probably just a fishing float". About five seconds later we turned again and said "lets just check, if it is a person we would never forgive ourselves". So I ordered the QM to disengage the autopilot and informed the Captain what I was doing and he approved. I went out to the bridge wing and conned the ship around the light into the man overboard recovery position, takes a lot of skill at night in a sea state 5 at 2 am. We shone our 15 inch signal light on it - it was a fishing float. Reported as such to the Captain and made a note in the ships log. At 4am I handed over the watch and I went to sleep. My cabin was directly below the Bridge and about 8am I was awoken by the sound of much activity. After a shower and coffee I went up to see what the fuss was about. The Captain turned to me and said "Tim, you are going to be so glad you stopped and checked that light last night". We had received a pan call from a container ship stating that they had lost a crewman overboard at around midnight and wanted assistance. Despite us searching, launching our helicopter, help from a Spanish frigate and her helicopter, a french Patrol Aircraft and numerous merchant ships the crewman was never found. Imagine what I would have had to live with I had not gone that extra mile and checked, doing my job with the utmost professionalism, taking no chances, I would have forever had to sleep at night not knowing. That is why I dont mess around with security and aircraft safety : "it will not happen on my watch".
Read my post properly. I did not say it is an offence to make jokes about security. I said it is the law that security questions have to be complied with.
I get immense satisfaction from my job. And why? Because I when I go to work I do my job with the utmost professionalism. I take no risks, safety of the aircraft and passengers comes first and foremost. As people in the military (where I come from) often say "I will not let it happen on my watch" and I dont. An occurence, which I will explain, has shapped me on that. I will explain at the end.
I remind you it is a legal requirement laid down by the Department of Transport that passengers comply with security questions. Those who do not are subject to extra security or removal from the flight.
Lets just take a look from another angle. Lets just say that a journalist had put this 16 year old up to it. His comments are ignored because "oh he is just a silly little kid playing a joke, he doesnt know any better". Next morning front page of the tabloids "AIRLINE STAFF IGNORE PASSENGER SAYING HE HAS A GUN". Then the same people who are slagging of JMC would be still slagging them off for lax security.
With regard to the incident at Gatwick lets remind ourself that the journalist got access because the truck driver breached security procedures and the security staff breached procedures. I hope they all get the sack. I dont breach security procedures - I follow them to the letter of law because if I dont I could lose my job or even worse be held responsible for an aviation disaster and spend my days in prison.
Let us remind ourselves with regard to the journalist who got a job at Stansted falsified his references to enable him to get the job - again an offence. When I started at Buzz two people on my course were booted out on day three when it was discovered they had supplied false references, so I can assure you the holes are not as gaping as the journalists would have you believe.
And so to the incident that has shapped me on the issue of by the book:
Mid March 2000 I was still in the Navy. I was serving as a Fighter Controller and Officer of the Watch on HMS Exeter, a Type 42 destroyer. We were off NW Spain heading NE, two days to go to Portsmouth at the end of a six month Gulf deployment. It was 2 am in the morning, weather was choppy sea state 5, steaming at 18 knots. It was a dark night. A small flashing light passed down the port side, very close, spotted as it passed the bow by me and quartermaster. We turned to each other and said "probably just a fishing float". About five seconds later we turned again and said "lets just check, if it is a person we would never forgive ourselves". So I ordered the QM to disengage the autopilot and informed the Captain what I was doing and he approved. I went out to the bridge wing and conned the ship around the light into the man overboard recovery position, takes a lot of skill at night in a sea state 5 at 2 am. We shone our 15 inch signal light on it - it was a fishing float. Reported as such to the Captain and made a note in the ships log. At 4am I handed over the watch and I went to sleep. My cabin was directly below the Bridge and about 8am I was awoken by the sound of much activity. After a shower and coffee I went up to see what the fuss was about. The Captain turned to me and said "Tim, you are going to be so glad you stopped and checked that light last night". We had received a pan call from a container ship stating that they had lost a crewman overboard at around midnight and wanted assistance. Despite us searching, launching our helicopter, help from a Spanish frigate and her helicopter, a french Patrol Aircraft and numerous merchant ships the crewman was never found. Imagine what I would have had to live with I had not gone that extra mile and checked, doing my job with the utmost professionalism, taking no chances, I would have forever had to sleep at night not knowing. That is why I dont mess around with security and aircraft safety : "it will not happen on my watch".
Last edited by timzsta; 15th Mar 2003 at 10:49.
The boy managed to catch a later flight. By which time I imagine he would have had plenty of 20/20 rear vision to consider the stupidity of his offhand joke. One suspects that had he played it in a country further to the west he could well have been detained for considerably longer.
The kid had a wrist slapped. He'll remember it and so will all his school. And perhaps the gruesome reality of where we're at today will sink in. Part of growing up.
The kid had a wrist slapped. He'll remember it and so will all his school. And perhaps the gruesome reality of where we're at today will sink in. Part of growing up.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
timzsta
I agree, you did not say it is an offence to make jokes about security. But you did suggest that you would “deny boarding to those people who think it is funny to make jokes about security”. So it seems you are prepared to deny boarding to people who haven’t committed an offence but who have made a joke that you disapprove of.
This might seem like reasonable behaviour in the humourless world you inhabit but some will see it as a misuse of authority. And waging war on a youth who has made a stupid remark will do nothing to help counter the real threat. I don't say you should have to tolerate rudeness from passengers but you shouldn't confuse rudeness with terrorism.
Just to clarify: if the youth in question had called you a pompous fool, that would be a joke – perhaps even an offensive joke – but not an offence.
I agree, you did not say it is an offence to make jokes about security. But you did suggest that you would “deny boarding to those people who think it is funny to make jokes about security”. So it seems you are prepared to deny boarding to people who haven’t committed an offence but who have made a joke that you disapprove of.
This might seem like reasonable behaviour in the humourless world you inhabit but some will see it as a misuse of authority. And waging war on a youth who has made a stupid remark will do nothing to help counter the real threat. I don't say you should have to tolerate rudeness from passengers but you shouldn't confuse rudeness with terrorism.
Just to clarify: if the youth in question had called you a pompous fool, that would be a joke – perhaps even an offensive joke – but not an offence.
Wicked Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: I-
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Security is a serious issue, regardless of age and as it has been said before especially after 11/09 there is zero tollerance about any kind of relates jokes.
Even small boys toy guns are not allowed anymore. For some people it is extreme, but after the events I must say I am the first one to agree.
Even small boys toy guns are not allowed anymore. For some people it is extreme, but after the events I must say I am the first one to agree.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LGW - Hub of the Universe!
Posts: 978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It reminds me of a story which, as a small boy, my mother used to tell me after I'd been "given the stick"!
A mother went to visit her son on the morning he was due to face the electric chair. She was told to sit no closer than six feet away from him, yet he kept saying to her "Lean forward, mummy! I want to tell you something in confidence!"
As she leaned as close as she was able, he spat full in her face and shouted "That's for all those times I should have been punished but you and dad let me get away with it! If you had only done your duty, I wouldn't be in the mess I'm in today!"
..........and with that, he went to the chair!
Yes! It is the child who gets punished for what should have been the parents' fault.............but that's life, and the sooner some people wake up to the fact, the better!
A mother went to visit her son on the morning he was due to face the electric chair. She was told to sit no closer than six feet away from him, yet he kept saying to her "Lean forward, mummy! I want to tell you something in confidence!"
As she leaned as close as she was able, he spat full in her face and shouted "That's for all those times I should have been punished but you and dad let me get away with it! If you had only done your duty, I wouldn't be in the mess I'm in today!"
..........and with that, he went to the chair!
Yes! It is the child who gets punished for what should have been the parents' fault.............but that's life, and the sooner some people wake up to the fact, the better!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Manchester UK
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must say that after reading all the posts many of you are dismissing the fact that an individual young,old, foreign or otherwise has answered the security questions in a manner that is unacceptable to the airline. Remember, the staff at check-in are your first form of defense from dodgy individuals and are paid by the airline to check in AND vett the pax.
How would you as a flight crew member feel if the dispatcher arrived on the flight deck and said " You've got 344 + 8 and only 2 pax said that they have a gun or a bomb on board... but it's ok because those that said it are only 17 year old boys".
I have to agree with Hew Jampton on this one. I used to be a police officer. Before anything serious was put on the official arrest notes I had to issue an official caution. The security questions are serious questions or else they wouldn't be asked in the first place. By prefixing them with an official caution,may, I say may, get pax actually treating them due respect.
How would you as a flight crew member feel if the dispatcher arrived on the flight deck and said " You've got 344 + 8 and only 2 pax said that they have a gun or a bomb on board... but it's ok because those that said it are only 17 year old boys".
I have to agree with Hew Jampton on this one. I used to be a police officer. Before anything serious was put on the official arrest notes I had to issue an official caution. The security questions are serious questions or else they wouldn't be asked in the first place. By prefixing them with an official caution,may, I say may, get pax actually treating them due respect.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: DXB
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harpy and Final 3 Greens,
What planet are the pair of you from? Did 9/11 pass you fools by, and have no impact on your daily life, or your outlook on life?
If you like, I can posts some links to news sites, that refer to 9/11. These will remind you of what happened, and maybe wake up those dead brain cells, which seem to be doing all of your reasoning.
Hope this young lad get's punished severely, and maybe that means that the school should expell him for behaviour, which surely brings the school into disrepute.
He's 16, not 6, and therefore he is fully aware of world events, not only today, but of 9/11.
AOG007
What planet are the pair of you from? Did 9/11 pass you fools by, and have no impact on your daily life, or your outlook on life?
If you like, I can posts some links to news sites, that refer to 9/11. These will remind you of what happened, and maybe wake up those dead brain cells, which seem to be doing all of your reasoning.
Hope this young lad get's punished severely, and maybe that means that the school should expell him for behaviour, which surely brings the school into disrepute.
He's 16, not 6, and therefore he is fully aware of world events, not only today, but of 9/11.
AOG007
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Burrow, N53:48:02 W1:48:57, The Tin Tent - EGBS, EGBO
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harpy, that was pure, unwarranted nastiness towards Bealine - or at least that's how it appears to me. 
Or are you speaking from personal experience? If so, you have my sympathy for what has happened to you but NOT my approval for your comments.
Or are you speaking from personal experience? If so, you have my sympathy for what has happened to you but NOT my approval for your comments.
Guest
Posts: n/a
AOG007
No it didn't and if you re-read my second post you will find the evidence in there.
But throwing the book at a kid who behaved stupidly does not make me feel any safer in the same way that throwing the book at the pilot who threatened to crash his 767 into the local authority building didn't make me feel any safer either - I don't regard either as serious terrorist threats - is this clear enough ?
Anti social behaviour and terrorism are different aspects of security and although I am not against dealing with the former, please do not confuse if with the latter.
By the way, it is a shame that you cannot argue your point of view without being abusive.
What planet are the pair of you from? Did 9/11 pass you fools by, and have no impact on your daily life, or your outlook on life?
But throwing the book at a kid who behaved stupidly does not make me feel any safer in the same way that throwing the book at the pilot who threatened to crash his 767 into the local authority building didn't make me feel any safer either - I don't regard either as serious terrorist threats - is this clear enough ?
Anti social behaviour and terrorism are different aspects of security and although I am not against dealing with the former, please do not confuse if with the latter.
By the way, it is a shame that you cannot argue your point of view without being abusive.
Last edited by Final 3 Greens; 16th Mar 2003 at 08:07.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: DXB
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As you state you are a frequent traveller. I therefore can't quite get my head around how you think, this is acceptable behaviour for a passenger, being asked the mandatory questions at check-in.
If you think about it, anti social behaviour, and terrorism are most similar in some respects. So as a result, for the untrained check-in agent (untrained, I refer to observing potential terrorists), any silly remark is treated as a potential threat.
I totally agree with your comment refering to 'terror training camp', so therefore they would be one's being very quiet, and acting in a suspicious manner due their actions. How therefore can a check-in agent, who is the first line of detection, able to spot these type's, when only minutes earlier, a stag weekend pitches up, and twenty intoxicated men jokingly say, "yeah we got hand grenades and pistols, and handcuffs!". The check-in agent is going to be 100% sure that these gentlemen will be joking. But what about Mr & Mrs Joe Bloggs stood behind them in the queue. Nervous throughout the entire duration of their journey? Probabable! Should they actually be carrying the afore mentioned items (if terrorists), and they use them, Oops! Sorry Master and Miss Bloggs, Mummy and Daddy have been involved in a terrible act of terrorism. Which of course could have been avoided had the check-in agent raised the alarm at the earliest opportunity. Could you live with that?
This senario is also valid if these practical jokers had wound up the check-in agent with their comments, and he/she then fail to spot the sweaty, quiet passenger, who has the tools required for something more sinister, than the 20 blokes on a stag weekend.
Anti-Social behaviour is not acceptable to an industry still recovering in many aspects from the aftermath of 9/11. But it must be treated simillarly to ensure we all get the right people.
The sixteen year knows right from wrong, and knows that comments, such as the one stated, are not received well by many individuals.
"Abusive" Well I apologise if I have offended you in any way, it was certainly not my intention. However I standby those comments posted earlier, as they are my opinion. I am entitled to that, as much as you are to yours.
But I know I would rather travel through an airport that I was running, as oppossed to one that you may possibly run. I really do think you are failing to see the relevance of terrorism v's anti-social behaviour.
AOG007
If you think about it, anti social behaviour, and terrorism are most similar in some respects. So as a result, for the untrained check-in agent (untrained, I refer to observing potential terrorists), any silly remark is treated as a potential threat.
I totally agree with your comment refering to 'terror training camp', so therefore they would be one's being very quiet, and acting in a suspicious manner due their actions. How therefore can a check-in agent, who is the first line of detection, able to spot these type's, when only minutes earlier, a stag weekend pitches up, and twenty intoxicated men jokingly say, "yeah we got hand grenades and pistols, and handcuffs!". The check-in agent is going to be 100% sure that these gentlemen will be joking. But what about Mr & Mrs Joe Bloggs stood behind them in the queue. Nervous throughout the entire duration of their journey? Probabable! Should they actually be carrying the afore mentioned items (if terrorists), and they use them, Oops! Sorry Master and Miss Bloggs, Mummy and Daddy have been involved in a terrible act of terrorism. Which of course could have been avoided had the check-in agent raised the alarm at the earliest opportunity. Could you live with that?
This senario is also valid if these practical jokers had wound up the check-in agent with their comments, and he/she then fail to spot the sweaty, quiet passenger, who has the tools required for something more sinister, than the 20 blokes on a stag weekend.
Anti-Social behaviour is not acceptable to an industry still recovering in many aspects from the aftermath of 9/11. But it must be treated simillarly to ensure we all get the right people.
The sixteen year knows right from wrong, and knows that comments, such as the one stated, are not received well by many individuals.
"Abusive" Well I apologise if I have offended you in any way, it was certainly not my intention. However I standby those comments posted earlier, as they are my opinion. I am entitled to that, as much as you are to yours.
But I know I would rather travel through an airport that I was running, as oppossed to one that you may possibly run. I really do think you are failing to see the relevance of terrorism v's anti-social behaviour.
AOG007
CUPID STUNT
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AOG
Valid and very good points!!!
Its a shame the 16 year old was not on a college trip to America and decided to pull this stunt on the return leg of his journey.
Im sure the Americans would of found it highly amusing!
SA
Valid and very good points!!!
Its a shame the 16 year old was not on a college trip to America and decided to pull this stunt on the return leg of his journey.
Im sure the Americans would of found it highly amusing!
SA
Guest
Posts: n/a
AOG077
Nonsense, your sentence is hopelessly ungrammatical, but the thrust is theorising that a punch up in a pub is analagous to premediated mass murder .... when did anti social behaviour last kill 3k people?
I have no intention of running an airport, but I have high expectations of performance from those who do. Incidents invovling reporters getting into the engineering bases at STN and a parked 75 on the apron at LGW and a vandal damaging a 73 flightdeck at STN do not impress me. This is totally unacceptable and much more serious than a youth making a fool of himself at check in.
So you know this for sure do you? Please explain when you interviewed him to ascertain this.
Let's get real. The anti terrorism bit of check in is about ensuring that the pax has no doubt about what is in their checked luggage.
"Did you pack the bag yourself"
"Could anyone have interefered with your baggage"
"Did anyone ask you to carry anything for them"
etc etc
All sensible questions and if the answer to any of the above is unacceptable (either positively or by uncertainty), then the screening has done it's job and a security officer can investigate in more depth.
If a someone jokes at check in about carrying a gun or bomb, then deal with their anti social behaviour accordingly. If someone is drunk, do the same.
The professional pilots who post here would much rather that you keep ANY problems on the ground (as would I.) I support the actions of the Astreus captain who diverted to Cardiff 100% despite what some others have said and I detest loutish behaviour in every respect.
But I do differentiate it from terrorism and if you cannot understand my argument, then we will have to agree to disagree, for I respect your right to hold your opinion too.
If you think about it, anti social behaviour, and terrorism are most similar in some respects
But I know I would rather travel through an airport that I was running, as oppossed to one that you may possibly run
The sixteen year knows right from wrong, and knows that comments, such as the one stated, are not received well by many individuals.
Let's get real. The anti terrorism bit of check in is about ensuring that the pax has no doubt about what is in their checked luggage.
"Did you pack the bag yourself"
"Could anyone have interefered with your baggage"
"Did anyone ask you to carry anything for them"
etc etc
All sensible questions and if the answer to any of the above is unacceptable (either positively or by uncertainty), then the screening has done it's job and a security officer can investigate in more depth.
If a someone jokes at check in about carrying a gun or bomb, then deal with their anti social behaviour accordingly. If someone is drunk, do the same.
The professional pilots who post here would much rather that you keep ANY problems on the ground (as would I.) I support the actions of the Astreus captain who diverted to Cardiff 100% despite what some others have said and I detest loutish behaviour in every respect.
But I do differentiate it from terrorism and if you cannot understand my argument, then we will have to agree to disagree, for I respect your right to hold your opinion too.
