Security at LHR... A true story?
Cr@p.
Professional pilots should not be subject to this form of ritual public humiliation at the hands of some barely trained MacDonald's reject.
No wonder many people are retiring early - the airline pilot's job clearly no longer has the respect, kudos or rewards it once did. No decent time off away from base in pleasant locations, no chatting to the passengers - just sitting in a locked box for a few hours, then going home.
In a few years' time, airlines will be finding it very hard indeed to find anyone prepared to put up with such an existence without a vastly increased salary.
And don't forget your lovely road-diggers' yellow jackets......
Professional pilots should not be subject to this form of ritual public humiliation at the hands of some barely trained MacDonald's reject.
No wonder many people are retiring early - the airline pilot's job clearly no longer has the respect, kudos or rewards it once did. No decent time off away from base in pleasant locations, no chatting to the passengers - just sitting in a locked box for a few hours, then going home.
In a few years' time, airlines will be finding it very hard indeed to find anyone prepared to put up with such an existence without a vastly increased salary.
And don't forget your lovely road-diggers' yellow jackets......
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not just the aircrew retiring early (I read a report that the TSA claims the only people who regularly complain about security procedures are the pilots. The passengers have bought into the bs that it is "for their safety").
These guys are doing nothing to make flying safer, in fact while they concentrate on the wrong targets, the bad guys get a free pass. Random searches reduce the chance of catching the terrorist, and so long as the only doors guarded are the front, leaving the rest of the airport unguarded, airport security is a sick joke.
The next time some crazies go for a strike, it will become obvious to the traveling public that they have been lied to, and people will abandon the airlines the way they did after Sep 11. A second hit to the economic well-being of the airlines will be sure to destroy it, so all of us who rely on flying for a living will be on the street.
It is important to all of us that we don't let these cretins win. Why make nice to the screeners, who "are only doing their job", when their job is to destroy ours?
Homeland Security is modelled after that of Nazi Germany in the 30's, and the above claim reminds me of the refrain of the guards from the concentration camps after the war (albeit I am stretching the comparison and do not want to suggest that these Bozos are evil).
Are we prepared to see the empire builders win or do we fight for common sense?
These guys are doing nothing to make flying safer, in fact while they concentrate on the wrong targets, the bad guys get a free pass. Random searches reduce the chance of catching the terrorist, and so long as the only doors guarded are the front, leaving the rest of the airport unguarded, airport security is a sick joke.
The next time some crazies go for a strike, it will become obvious to the traveling public that they have been lied to, and people will abandon the airlines the way they did after Sep 11. A second hit to the economic well-being of the airlines will be sure to destroy it, so all of us who rely on flying for a living will be on the street.
It is important to all of us that we don't let these cretins win. Why make nice to the screeners, who "are only doing their job", when their job is to destroy ours?
Homeland Security is modelled after that of Nazi Germany in the 30's, and the above claim reminds me of the refrain of the guards from the concentration camps after the war (albeit I am stretching the comparison and do not want to suggest that these Bozos are evil).
Are we prepared to see the empire builders win or do we fight for common sense?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Shetland
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about this one then. The BA8774 landed on time into Sumburgh yesterday. We delicately off-loaded the bags onto the truck. While putting the bags onto the rollers for collection by the passengers, a parachute flare of rather large proportions happened to fall out of a rucksack. Obviously the passenger was severely told in no uncertain terms that he should not have carried it in is baggage as it was an explosive & could have caused a rather nasty incident. The passenger then said that they always carry one as they were divers.
Upon further checking it was found that they had through-checked their baggage when they checked in at Heathrow.
Not only one potential accident but two. Not mentioning of course that the thing could have gone off while the baggage being handled at all the transfer points.
So why wasn't it picked up by security at Heathrow?
Upon further checking it was found that they had through-checked their baggage when they checked in at Heathrow.
Not only one potential accident but two. Not mentioning of course that the thing could have gone off while the baggage being handled at all the transfer points.
So why wasn't it picked up by security at Heathrow?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder what the crews of the 4 aircraft concerned in the Sept 11th incidents would have had to say about all this?
So you are a pilot..or cabin crew? what the hell do you need a leatherman for on a flight deck? Is it really nessesery to carry a metal knife and fork? OK they may use them in Harrods, but face facts everyone else on the flight manages with plastic.
Verious posts have pointed out that the D of T (or whatever its called this week) invent the rules. The Security staff have to interpret them, its not thier fault and if they c*** up then they can look forward to a trip to the local job centre at best and are responsible for something rather nasty at worst.
Think about this sensibly, if there is a blanket rule, everyone complies with then less grief is caused all round at the search area. Remember all the petty stupidity from proffessional pilots over police being allowed though with weapons they are legaly entitled to carry?
Yes Security at airports sometimes do take things a little far, the toy handcuffs being a good example, but as I say they have to rules to which they are bound. If its any consolation, I can remember BAA refusing to allow a child to take a water pistol in the cabin. Silly? Yes in a way, until you have experienced the joys of being squirted with a water pistol full of lemon juice in the face.
So you are a pilot..or cabin crew? what the hell do you need a leatherman for on a flight deck? Is it really nessesery to carry a metal knife and fork? OK they may use them in Harrods, but face facts everyone else on the flight manages with plastic.
Verious posts have pointed out that the D of T (or whatever its called this week) invent the rules. The Security staff have to interpret them, its not thier fault and if they c*** up then they can look forward to a trip to the local job centre at best and are responsible for something rather nasty at worst.
Think about this sensibly, if there is a blanket rule, everyone complies with then less grief is caused all round at the search area. Remember all the petty stupidity from proffessional pilots over police being allowed though with weapons they are legaly entitled to carry?
Yes Security at airports sometimes do take things a little far, the toy handcuffs being a good example, but as I say they have to rules to which they are bound. If its any consolation, I can remember BAA refusing to allow a child to take a water pistol in the cabin. Silly? Yes in a way, until you have experienced the joys of being squirted with a water pistol full of lemon juice in the face.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other factor everyone is overlooking is that the the security people have no way of being sure you are crew. Any self respecting terrorist would have no problem getting hold of a uniform and stealing or faking an ID. So the security has to assume that anyone going through the checkpoint is a potential hijacker, and treat them accordingly. Of course this doesn't make the policy on what's allowed or not any more sensible
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: North East UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
beagle
"Professional pilots should not be subject to this form of ritual public humiliation at the hands of some barely trained MacDonald's reject."
How about the Midland captain that was caught at security up here recently smuggling a lock knife through between his belt and his trousers?
What do you need a lock knif for in the cockpit?
"Professional pilots should not be subject to this form of ritual public humiliation at the hands of some barely trained MacDonald's reject."
How about the Midland captain that was caught at security up here recently smuggling a lock knife through between his belt and his trousers?
What do you need a lock knif for in the cockpit?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Grobelling through the murk to the sunshine above.
Age: 60
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
"So you are a pilot..or cabin crew? what the hell do you need a leatherman for on a flight deck? "
Not on the flight deck as such, but airside:
Check security of screws/dzeus fasteners.
Help open 'stubborn' latches on seldom-used panels.
Other things my cold and numb fingers couldn't cope with.
Actually on the flight deck:
Fix a broken microphone (often).
Secure wobbly gauges (no glass cockpit on some types).
Pull circuit-breakers, including a faulty one that had welded itself in due to excess heat.
After flight:
Open beer bottles.
My Leatherman has helped a lot over the years, and but for its presence I am sure I would have suffered more delays or even unscheduled night stops than I have.
They are such useful things I think every aircraft should have one on board as standard equipment.
Mine is now retired from flying but is still an able and willing assistant to me as an amateur mechanic and classic car enthusiast.
"So you are a pilot..or cabin crew? what the hell do you need a leatherman for on a flight deck? "
Not on the flight deck as such, but airside:
Check security of screws/dzeus fasteners.
Help open 'stubborn' latches on seldom-used panels.
Other things my cold and numb fingers couldn't cope with.
Actually on the flight deck:
Fix a broken microphone (often).
Secure wobbly gauges (no glass cockpit on some types).
Pull circuit-breakers, including a faulty one that had welded itself in due to excess heat.
After flight:
Open beer bottles.
My Leatherman has helped a lot over the years, and but for its presence I am sure I would have suffered more delays or even unscheduled night stops than I have.
They are such useful things I think every aircraft should have one on board as standard equipment.
Mine is now retired from flying but is still an able and willing assistant to me as an amateur mechanic and classic car enthusiast.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No nailfile, computer, medal, brooch or pen has ever been used to hijack an airplane, and even the shoe scenario is suspect, since Richard Reid’s shoes were blown up using a controlled charge of dynamite before they were properly examined, and without even taking samples of the filling. It is probable that even had he been able to set them off, they would only have smoked. No bomb threat at an airport or on an airplane has ever resulted in finding a bomb, yet the security Bozos mindlessly react to these “threats” every time.
But look at a simple item that can be used as a weapon (known to terrorists and already used) that is not restricted at all; duty free bottles of alcohol. Think of the many ways this can be used to threaten or attack the airplane and occupants. Duty free purchases can be restricted to arrivals, easily reducing this threat, but no action has been taken and none will. Why? $$$$MONEY!!!!$$$$. The manufacturers, sales outlets and the airports themselves make billions every year from sales, and lobbying ensures that no threat will be made to profits. What is the value of 400+ passengers and crew compared to the duty free profits? The TSA (and all such organisations) are cynical slimeballs and they know it, offering protection from terrorism in return for us giving up our freedoms and rights, but totally unable to deliver.
Armed pilots? Sky marshals? Training for cabin crew in how to handle a threat? Profiling? Too hard. Better to assume that the crew and passengers, who cannot complain lest they lose their job or are put on a ban list, are the real enemy. And hope that no real terrorists are in the security line.
Now picture a guy standing in the aisle with a nailfile, screaming. The only danger is that we will injure ourselves as we fall down laughing. Over the last year alone a bottle, asthma inhaler, a fork, chopsticks, a cellphone, bare fists and a TV remote have been used in hijack attempts (the last was successful). How do you protect against these threats by banning them? Obviously it is impossible. And they miss real weapons (see their own reports) almost as often as the private security firms did before the TSA was invented. Even El Al misses real weapons (see the unsuccessful hijack attempt using a pen knife earlier this year).
The only real danger is from the TSA, which has the power to arbitrarily cancel a pilot licence without appeal and without disclosing the reason, sure to be used when the level of criticism is high enough. The government has run a very successful campaign to frighten the travelling public in order to expand its powers in such a draconian way. My hernia is in danger whenever I lose control on hearing the expression “Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.”
But yet there are those who cling to the hope that the authorities know what they are doing, and if they only give up enough freedoms and rights they will get safety in return. Sad.
But look at a simple item that can be used as a weapon (known to terrorists and already used) that is not restricted at all; duty free bottles of alcohol. Think of the many ways this can be used to threaten or attack the airplane and occupants. Duty free purchases can be restricted to arrivals, easily reducing this threat, but no action has been taken and none will. Why? $$$$MONEY!!!!$$$$. The manufacturers, sales outlets and the airports themselves make billions every year from sales, and lobbying ensures that no threat will be made to profits. What is the value of 400+ passengers and crew compared to the duty free profits? The TSA (and all such organisations) are cynical slimeballs and they know it, offering protection from terrorism in return for us giving up our freedoms and rights, but totally unable to deliver.
Armed pilots? Sky marshals? Training for cabin crew in how to handle a threat? Profiling? Too hard. Better to assume that the crew and passengers, who cannot complain lest they lose their job or are put on a ban list, are the real enemy. And hope that no real terrorists are in the security line.
Now picture a guy standing in the aisle with a nailfile, screaming. The only danger is that we will injure ourselves as we fall down laughing. Over the last year alone a bottle, asthma inhaler, a fork, chopsticks, a cellphone, bare fists and a TV remote have been used in hijack attempts (the last was successful). How do you protect against these threats by banning them? Obviously it is impossible. And they miss real weapons (see their own reports) almost as often as the private security firms did before the TSA was invented. Even El Al misses real weapons (see the unsuccessful hijack attempt using a pen knife earlier this year).
The only real danger is from the TSA, which has the power to arbitrarily cancel a pilot licence without appeal and without disclosing the reason, sure to be used when the level of criticism is high enough. The government has run a very successful campaign to frighten the travelling public in order to expand its powers in such a draconian way. My hernia is in danger whenever I lose control on hearing the expression “Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.”
But yet there are those who cling to the hope that the authorities know what they are doing, and if they only give up enough freedoms and rights they will get safety in return. Sad.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boofhead
So no bomb threat to an airport has ever resulted in a bomb being found?
Funny then my twisted imagination must have dreamed up our irish friends making numerous threats to Heathrow one day in the early 90's, and then mortar bombs arriving on the aprons. Try watching the video of the little girl's badly injured body being lifted up by someone after the Frankfurt Bombings. Remember Lockabie? Threats were made about all these events.
Or perhaps the history of terrorism started in on sept 11th. The trouble with Americans is you forget the rest of the world has been dealing with this for years.
Leaving aside the nutters with home made lunchboxes full of wire and kiddies playdo, to my knowladge the Isralis have found at least none bomb, that one having already got past the BAA's security at heathow.
You are probably right, treat everyone as a supsect and the chances of something being used as a weapon to try to hijack an aircraft are much reduced. You make your point so come up with an alternative.
I will agree on the bottles from Duty free...but then as its from what I understand a big money spinner for airport owners, draw your own conclutions on the chances of them being banned by goverments.
So no bomb threat to an airport has ever resulted in a bomb being found?
Funny then my twisted imagination must have dreamed up our irish friends making numerous threats to Heathrow one day in the early 90's, and then mortar bombs arriving on the aprons. Try watching the video of the little girl's badly injured body being lifted up by someone after the Frankfurt Bombings. Remember Lockabie? Threats were made about all these events.
Or perhaps the history of terrorism started in on sept 11th. The trouble with Americans is you forget the rest of the world has been dealing with this for years.
Leaving aside the nutters with home made lunchboxes full of wire and kiddies playdo, to my knowladge the Isralis have found at least none bomb, that one having already got past the BAA's security at heathow.
You are probably right, treat everyone as a supsect and the chances of something being used as a weapon to try to hijack an aircraft are much reduced. You make your point so come up with an alternative.
I will agree on the bottles from Duty free...but then as its from what I understand a big money spinner for airport owners, draw your own conclutions on the chances of them being banned by goverments.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A basic part of risk management is to assess the magnitude of the risk. Then an appropriate defence can be determined. It sounds savage, but the events of Sep 11 in 2001, when compared to the number of flights and passengers that had been safely carried even in that one year, was statistically insignificant. The chance of any airplane, or any passenger on that airplane, being subject to a terrorism incident, even if the authorities did nothing to protect against it, is so small that it could be ignored. Of course that is not a sound approach, even if the only aim is to reassure the travelling public, but it is easy to over-react, and when the real aim (as I believe it is) is to grow an empire, overreaction is logical.
A bomb threat makes sense only if the perpetrator intends mischief, to disrupt the target and cause panic and expense. If the aim is to simply blow the target apart, then a warning makes no sense at all. The example of the IRA attacking Heathrow was a different scenario, involving an act of war, and there were several warnings (false warnings) before the mortar attack. With respect, it was not a bomb threat as is commonly considered. The bombing of Pan Am (and others) did not start with a warning (an actual threat to that airplane, flight or even airline). There were general threats, but nobody called in to say that they intended to attack that flight. The bombers gave no warning. It is still true that a bomb threat has always meant that there was no bomb, real or fake. It would be possible to ignore all threats, and react to only genuine explosions or actual bombs. The saving in time and money would be very real. After all the years of telling the public that only the government can protect them though, would make such an approach a political disaster.
So what can be done to provide a reasonable level of protection without driving the public away from the airports and destroying the airline industry, as is being done now? First, we need to go back to a reasonable level of surveillance, tighter than it was before Sep 11, but not as draconian as we see today. Second, stop the random searches and quota searches. These waste resources. Better to put the effort into what will work. Lay off the nailfiles, laptops and shoes. Third, develop effective profiling, to identify those who are likely to be terrorists and criminals. There are some airlines and airports that have this skill and could be a source for worthwhile training. Ignoring “foreign” ideas as “not invented here” is simply stupid and plays into the hands of the terrorists.
Fourth, clear all the baggage X-ray machines away from public concourses. Put them out back, where the detonation of a bomb will hurt fewer people.
Fifth, develop procedures and training for flight and cabin crew to be able to handle inflight terrorism and criminal acts. Sort out the legal liabilities for them and see that they have the right tools to get the job done. After all, when the airport security fails (as it has, and as it will) it is in the air that the real danger must be faced. Make sure that all crew know that under no circumstances will anyone be allowed access to the flight deck. Never; no matter what. The flight deck crew should, on the receipt of a threat, have a way to manually lock the door (if fitted), prepare for an attack (using guns or other means) and immediately land the airplane. Cabin crew must be aware that they are on their own, and not to expect help from the flight deck. Many of you think that this is already procedure, but until it is officially FAA/CAA mandated it is not.
Sixth, expedite the training and provision of guns (or other weapons) for pilots and armed marshals.
There are other ways to improve safety in the air, but somehow those of us who actually fly on the airplanes are hardly ever asked for our opinion. Meanwhile the empires grow.
A bomb threat makes sense only if the perpetrator intends mischief, to disrupt the target and cause panic and expense. If the aim is to simply blow the target apart, then a warning makes no sense at all. The example of the IRA attacking Heathrow was a different scenario, involving an act of war, and there were several warnings (false warnings) before the mortar attack. With respect, it was not a bomb threat as is commonly considered. The bombing of Pan Am (and others) did not start with a warning (an actual threat to that airplane, flight or even airline). There were general threats, but nobody called in to say that they intended to attack that flight. The bombers gave no warning. It is still true that a bomb threat has always meant that there was no bomb, real or fake. It would be possible to ignore all threats, and react to only genuine explosions or actual bombs. The saving in time and money would be very real. After all the years of telling the public that only the government can protect them though, would make such an approach a political disaster.
So what can be done to provide a reasonable level of protection without driving the public away from the airports and destroying the airline industry, as is being done now? First, we need to go back to a reasonable level of surveillance, tighter than it was before Sep 11, but not as draconian as we see today. Second, stop the random searches and quota searches. These waste resources. Better to put the effort into what will work. Lay off the nailfiles, laptops and shoes. Third, develop effective profiling, to identify those who are likely to be terrorists and criminals. There are some airlines and airports that have this skill and could be a source for worthwhile training. Ignoring “foreign” ideas as “not invented here” is simply stupid and plays into the hands of the terrorists.
Fourth, clear all the baggage X-ray machines away from public concourses. Put them out back, where the detonation of a bomb will hurt fewer people.
Fifth, develop procedures and training for flight and cabin crew to be able to handle inflight terrorism and criminal acts. Sort out the legal liabilities for them and see that they have the right tools to get the job done. After all, when the airport security fails (as it has, and as it will) it is in the air that the real danger must be faced. Make sure that all crew know that under no circumstances will anyone be allowed access to the flight deck. Never; no matter what. The flight deck crew should, on the receipt of a threat, have a way to manually lock the door (if fitted), prepare for an attack (using guns or other means) and immediately land the airplane. Cabin crew must be aware that they are on their own, and not to expect help from the flight deck. Many of you think that this is already procedure, but until it is officially FAA/CAA mandated it is not.
Sixth, expedite the training and provision of guns (or other weapons) for pilots and armed marshals.
There are other ways to improve safety in the air, but somehow those of us who actually fly on the airplanes are hardly ever asked for our opinion. Meanwhile the empires grow.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I am aware there is no state of war, nor has there ever been between the IRA and the UK. Yes there were threats to Heathrow before the mortar attacks, in fact they used to avarge 2 or 3 a day, mostly from nutters, sometimes from Terroist groups, were they fake? Speaking as someone who worked there as a policeman at the time, I think I am in a better position to judge. Irresective of that, yes threats can cause panic and or disruption. You have pointed out that the effect of sept 11th wasn't that great in compasion to the number of passengers carried etc. Correct it wasn't, but the impact of a all the threats made can cause equal if not more problems for all concerned, for instance the loss of revenue. Its therefore easy to see why terrorists (which includes the IRA) use threats as a weapon.
As regards to Lochabie, the informationwas somewhat more specific than you imply.
Having said that, and disregarding your incacuracies concerning history, some of what you suggest does make sense, sadly I think we can all rest assured the chances of your ideas being used are low.
As regards to Lochabie, the informationwas somewhat more specific than you imply.
Having said that, and disregarding your incacuracies concerning history, some of what you suggest does make sense, sadly I think we can all rest assured the chances of your ideas being used are low.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: gatwick
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok -- working (at different airport from LHR) as computer engineer. Had just picked up a laptop from Airline staff and prepared to go through staff security to get to my van. Laptop went through x-ray but was stopped the other side.
"Can you show me it working sir"
No problem with that except "sorry no, it's broken - wont boot up" and then explained situation.
Up to this point all fair and reasonable , hes doing his job, I'm doing mine, Except now the turns into Mr Jobsworth "if you cant show me it workin you cant take it through here'
No amount of pleading, explaining pointing out how silly they he's sounding did he budge from the mantra. Called the supervisor over and he went through the same blind routine.
Finaly I gave up. Mentioned to them that I would leave the laptop with another Airline staff whilst I went Airside to get the van and pick up the laptop later. I was then informed that as the item had already gone through x-ray that it would have to be retained by them. -WHAT!
They started to explain that after suitable checks etc that at some later unspecified date I might be allowed to pick up the laptop from their security HQ If I could show suitable proof of ownership etc etc
At this point I did what most poor passangers or other staff were usualy unable to do, I started ignoring their wittering and phoned the Airline staff who owned the laptop and told him what would be happening to his laptop.
I then stood there smiling sweetly at the getting more confused security staff untill about 4 minutes later when the supervisor got a phone call from the Head of security at the airport asking what the F*** was happening to the laptop of the (Major Airline) Principal Manager at the Airport.
Funnly enough, after a short one-sided conversation, the Security Supervisor had a change of heart and let me carry on airside with the offending item.
Now thank the stars I was on this occation able to bypass the whole extended sillyness, - but I wonder to the inteligence and/or common sense being applied to this situation (and conversly how little being applied to real threats ? )
"Can you show me it working sir"
No problem with that except "sorry no, it's broken - wont boot up" and then explained situation.
Up to this point all fair and reasonable , hes doing his job, I'm doing mine, Except now the turns into Mr Jobsworth "if you cant show me it workin you cant take it through here'
No amount of pleading, explaining pointing out how silly they he's sounding did he budge from the mantra. Called the supervisor over and he went through the same blind routine.
Finaly I gave up. Mentioned to them that I would leave the laptop with another Airline staff whilst I went Airside to get the van and pick up the laptop later. I was then informed that as the item had already gone through x-ray that it would have to be retained by them. -WHAT!
They started to explain that after suitable checks etc that at some later unspecified date I might be allowed to pick up the laptop from their security HQ If I could show suitable proof of ownership etc etc
At this point I did what most poor passangers or other staff were usualy unable to do, I started ignoring their wittering and phoned the Airline staff who owned the laptop and told him what would be happening to his laptop.
I then stood there smiling sweetly at the getting more confused security staff untill about 4 minutes later when the supervisor got a phone call from the Head of security at the airport asking what the F*** was happening to the laptop of the (Major Airline) Principal Manager at the Airport.
Funnly enough, after a short one-sided conversation, the Security Supervisor had a change of heart and let me carry on airside with the offending item.
Now thank the stars I was on this occation able to bypass the whole extended sillyness, - but I wonder to the inteligence and/or common sense being applied to this situation (and conversly how little being applied to real threats ? )
If you look at the TSA list, it is not really unreasonable. You can take round nose scissors, a metal butter knife, knitting needles, nail clippers.....
The real problem with airport security is that it gives the opportunity for poorly supervised and often not terribly intelligent people, usually on pitiful salaries, the opportunity to make other peoples lives as unpleasant as theirs. When you throw in the magic word 'security' all control is lost - the lunatics are running the asylum, and any dissent by the enraged masses is immediately interpreted as a threat to civilised society.
Of topic, but can anyone confirm the anecdotal stories that UK airport police have on occasion refused to return weapons to sky marshalls when they reported for duty since they were clearly not sober?
The real problem with airport security is that it gives the opportunity for poorly supervised and often not terribly intelligent people, usually on pitiful salaries, the opportunity to make other peoples lives as unpleasant as theirs. When you throw in the magic word 'security' all control is lost - the lunatics are running the asylum, and any dissent by the enraged masses is immediately interpreted as a threat to civilised society.
Of topic, but can anyone confirm the anecdotal stories that UK airport police have on occasion refused to return weapons to sky marshalls when they reported for duty since they were clearly not sober?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: EGLL
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was on duty for every mortar attack at LHR, scared me to death. Airport security is crap. If you want to get around it, you can. Nothing will stop a determined person getting airside and doing some damage. You do not even have to get airside. A friend of mine passes through security at LBA everytime for his shift, the security don't know that in the staff kitchen (airside) there are steel knives (up to 12" long) and forks which can be easily taken onto an aeroplane. I remember one security guard saying to me "it's not you but it could be the person who is holding your family". I did not understand because I would not have to go through security to get a dangerous weapon on board an aeroplane, the weapons are already there (big axe). What about the engineers, do they use blunt, plastic screwdrivers? Do they use sharp knives? Are they terrorists? We do not know, but all I'm saying that there are far more other avenues to look at to ensure security. The passenger side of it is minimal.
Just a numbered other
now you can't even get yourself airside!
Not LHR but a recently renamed provincial dump oop norf.
A well known electronics retailer has a shop airside in the terminal, and has recently extended a welcome to all airport and airline employees to buy high street goods at a discount.
Present self to security with valid airside pass which allows me to gain access to ramp and aeroplane, flying it for the purpose of.
'No, no, your pass doesn't permit access to the terminal'
Why not?
Cos it's a blue one. You need a red one.
But why can't a pilot visit the shops and only restaurants on the airport when on duty?
Cos your pass is the wrong colour.
But is that reasonable?
You need a red pass, see?
I know that, but why can't a pilot go airside in the terminal? where's the secutity implication?
See, if you had a red pass, not a blue one, you could come through.
etc. etc.
A well known electronics retailer has a shop airside in the terminal, and has recently extended a welcome to all airport and airline employees to buy high street goods at a discount.
Present self to security with valid airside pass which allows me to gain access to ramp and aeroplane, flying it for the purpose of.
'No, no, your pass doesn't permit access to the terminal'
Why not?
Cos it's a blue one. You need a red one.
But why can't a pilot visit the shops and only restaurants on the airport when on duty?
Cos your pass is the wrong colour.
But is that reasonable?
You need a red pass, see?
I know that, but why can't a pilot go airside in the terminal? where's the secutity implication?
See, if you had a red pass, not a blue one, you could come through.
etc. etc.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Now back in England
Age: 84
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ar the risk of presenting yet another story of "bone headedness" ( I came to this thread late) some months ago I went through security at Humberside Airport en route to Europe. My case was subjected to an "in depth" check and when the security man found a battery operated alarm clock, he became very suspicious. I was then asked to set the alarm and prove that it worked.
The implication of what he was asking me to do obviously escaped him. If the "device" had been a timer for something more sinister then neither of us would have been here now.
I tried to point this out but his reply was that if he didn't hear the alarm going off (without the subsequent bang - I presume) then I would not be travelling.
Some months later, the local radio station disclosed that the high security fence around the airport was only partly competed because of lack of funds. The interview with the (I think) Airport Manager over this obvious lack of security only produced waffle.
Nuff said!
The implication of what he was asking me to do obviously escaped him. If the "device" had been a timer for something more sinister then neither of us would have been here now.
I tried to point this out but his reply was that if he didn't hear the alarm going off (without the subsequent bang - I presume) then I would not be travelling.
Some months later, the local radio station disclosed that the high security fence around the airport was only partly competed because of lack of funds. The interview with the (I think) Airport Manager over this obvious lack of security only produced waffle.
Nuff said!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Far flung shores
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ArkRoyal - Weird that, coz my aircrew one has worked fine at LGW whenever I've wanted to visit the 'duty free'.
Aside - are you aware that the prices offered in the 'Duty Free' are typically 17.5% less than the RRP ( this is so that it looks to Joe Public like it's still duty free ).
However the best bit is that when you make a purchse ( e.g. laptop ) the retailer will give you a receipt - complete with a VAT number and the VAT applied - so if you, or your company, are registered for VAT you can also claim the 17.5% VAT back.... ergo your goods are being purchased for 35% less than RRP, and they still have all the usuall warrantees that you'd associate with a major retailer.
Aside - are you aware that the prices offered in the 'Duty Free' are typically 17.5% less than the RRP ( this is so that it looks to Joe Public like it's still duty free ).
However the best bit is that when you make a purchse ( e.g. laptop ) the retailer will give you a receipt - complete with a VAT number and the VAT applied - so if you, or your company, are registered for VAT you can also claim the 17.5% VAT back.... ergo your goods are being purchased for 35% less than RRP, and they still have all the usuall warrantees that you'd associate with a major retailer.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Working mobile phones
Like many techno-geeks I've a fine collection of perfectly functional, but obselete mobiles.
One in my collection has two, working, batteries. One is a slim-line, the other about 150% bigger.
How easy would it be to...
One in my collection has two, working, batteries. One is a slim-line, the other about 150% bigger.
How easy would it be to...
Just a numbered other
Thanks, puritan,
Sounds like LGW is a little more enlightened than NEMA.
It's interesting isn't it, that these shops, paying sky-high airport rent can flog stuff at such a good discount. It obviously isn't 'duty free' after all?
Don't suppose I'll find out this side of christmas, though, unless I get a free standby ticket to somewhere, and fail to join?
simply barmy.
airborne_a At CVT a while back, the guards insisted on seeing the phone function. Had to leave mine in the car once as the battery was flat.
Sounds like LGW is a little more enlightened than NEMA.
It's interesting isn't it, that these shops, paying sky-high airport rent can flog stuff at such a good discount. It obviously isn't 'duty free' after all?
Don't suppose I'll find out this side of christmas, though, unless I get a free standby ticket to somewhere, and fail to join?
simply barmy.
airborne_a At CVT a while back, the guards insisted on seeing the phone function. Had to leave mine in the car once as the battery was flat.