UK and French flights 'targets' [again] - BBC and CNN (merged)
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rongotai.. I am thinking of moving my American (also Aus citizens) family to NZ because of the difficulties in living in the US (not all to do with the security garbage). Do you say they will not be made to feel welcome? I do not want to put them into a place where they will want to leave again after a short time.
When I fly into the US now, on a visa, I have to submit to the photo and fingerprinting. I notice that I might be on the end of a long line, and everyone ahead has to put their finger onto the reader. Am I at risk of catching something from someone who might have a communicable disease? I would imagine that this has been thought out already, but in Anchorage they make me (and everyone ahead) rub the finger on the forehead first to get a good reading, which is grubby, to say the least.
When I fly into the US now, on a visa, I have to submit to the photo and fingerprinting. I notice that I might be on the end of a long line, and everyone ahead has to put their finger onto the reader. Am I at risk of catching something from someone who might have a communicable disease? I would imagine that this has been thought out already, but in Anchorage they make me (and everyone ahead) rub the finger on the forehead first to get a good reading, which is grubby, to say the least.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DFW, Tx - USA
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rongotai - Sorry to hear that you and your employees will no longer be visiting the USA. But I, as a businessman, believe that you have finally "seen the light" regarding the "cost-benefit" of doing business in the USA, and that these security measures that are so bothersome to you are merely the "trigger" to your decision. Might I suggest, as one business man to another, that you should have made this decision a decade or more ago, before 11-Sept-01.
Rongotai - What bothers me far more than your common sense business decision are those who will no longer be coming to the USA on business, valid profit producing business, or to merely spend their holidays visiting our great country. These people are, I fear, reacting in a xenaphobic manner to the new security rules we have had to put in place to provide America with some small semblance of "security". These folks are certainly wrong in their reasoning, but I doubt I could ever talk them into changing their minds on this subject!
Does it surprise anyone here that as far back as 1997 I had to have a "visa" to visit Mexico? Yes, that is a fact. A "business" visa that had to be purchased upon entry. Had to show my passport and all that. Answer detailed questions, etc. I did not feel "put upon", as I accepted that it was Mexico's absolute right to make the rules regards entry into their country, and to thus "delay me" some 30 minutes crossing the border.
Rongotai - You made a valid business decision. I doubt that there will be many others in your same situation, but if there are, then they too should make the same decision as you, and we will thus have a better and stronger world economy because of it!
Danny posted his usual well reasoned view of this whole subject.
What bothers me is why America "publicizes" this intelligence info. Why do we (collectively) not wait until after boarding time passes - without boarding a single pax and then put every single pax through the most rigurous and intensive personal search, including body cavities, until we are satisfied that all pax are "safe". This search would include all carryon; checked bags, as well as cargo parcels/cases. I mean by this that everything (NO exceptions) would be hand-searched to the "n-th" degree. We could also "compare" the tickets sold to actual pax available to board and look for those who are "missing". Might we not then have a better chance of catching those foolish AQ people in the boarding gate area and have "some chance" to interrogate them at our leisure.
Oh yes, this "search" would include the airplane, as groundbased people could have placed "bad" items in/on the plane.
Really don't understand why we don't try and "trap" the b uggers rather than let them know in advance that we are on to them.
America is still a great country to do business in; still a great country to visit. Come and visit us - don't let the b uggers win without a fight!
Ciao - and please see my signature line below .......
Rongotai - What bothers me far more than your common sense business decision are those who will no longer be coming to the USA on business, valid profit producing business, or to merely spend their holidays visiting our great country. These people are, I fear, reacting in a xenaphobic manner to the new security rules we have had to put in place to provide America with some small semblance of "security". These folks are certainly wrong in their reasoning, but I doubt I could ever talk them into changing their minds on this subject!
Does it surprise anyone here that as far back as 1997 I had to have a "visa" to visit Mexico? Yes, that is a fact. A "business" visa that had to be purchased upon entry. Had to show my passport and all that. Answer detailed questions, etc. I did not feel "put upon", as I accepted that it was Mexico's absolute right to make the rules regards entry into their country, and to thus "delay me" some 30 minutes crossing the border.
Rongotai - You made a valid business decision. I doubt that there will be many others in your same situation, but if there are, then they too should make the same decision as you, and we will thus have a better and stronger world economy because of it!
Danny posted his usual well reasoned view of this whole subject.
What bothers me is why America "publicizes" this intelligence info. Why do we (collectively) not wait until after boarding time passes - without boarding a single pax and then put every single pax through the most rigurous and intensive personal search, including body cavities, until we are satisfied that all pax are "safe". This search would include all carryon; checked bags, as well as cargo parcels/cases. I mean by this that everything (NO exceptions) would be hand-searched to the "n-th" degree. We could also "compare" the tickets sold to actual pax available to board and look for those who are "missing". Might we not then have a better chance of catching those foolish AQ people in the boarding gate area and have "some chance" to interrogate them at our leisure.
Oh yes, this "search" would include the airplane, as groundbased people could have placed "bad" items in/on the plane.
Really don't understand why we don't try and "trap" the b uggers rather than let them know in advance that we are on to them.
America is still a great country to do business in; still a great country to visit. Come and visit us - don't let the b uggers win without a fight!
Ciao - and please see my signature line below .......
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seattle, WA USA
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyhoo -- I certainly don't want to sidetrack the discussion, but the finger on the forehead thing certainly is intriguing.
Perhaps it's to make sure that you get oil from your skin onto your finger to get a better print (after all, handling your bags and documentation while waiting in line would rub the oil off of your fingertips). So, if that is the case, I would imagine that they would wipe off the reader after each person uses it so that the residual oil left on the pad from the previous user(s) no longer remains to 'contaminate' the print you are leaving. To clean off the pad, they would probably have to use something with an alcohol solution to remove that residual oil and that would remove most bacteria and/or viruses. More of a chance to get sick from the person in front of you sneezing or coughing than transmitted via the pad.
Kind of shooting from the hip with that, so would appreciate any correction/confirmation.
With that, please continue with the prior discussion...
Perhaps it's to make sure that you get oil from your skin onto your finger to get a better print (after all, handling your bags and documentation while waiting in line would rub the oil off of your fingertips). So, if that is the case, I would imagine that they would wipe off the reader after each person uses it so that the residual oil left on the pad from the previous user(s) no longer remains to 'contaminate' the print you are leaving. To clean off the pad, they would probably have to use something with an alcohol solution to remove that residual oil and that would remove most bacteria and/or viruses. More of a chance to get sick from the person in front of you sneezing or coughing than transmitted via the pad.
Kind of shooting from the hip with that, so would appreciate any correction/confirmation.
With that, please continue with the prior discussion...
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Wellington
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA SLF
You are probably right about my being triggered to make a business decision I should have made a decade ago. It doesn't alter my basic point here, though, that one change has triggered another, and if that happens across a significant number of people there has been a social change.
If you are right, then my earlier decisions were not economically rational, but arose from my emotional - perhaps sentimental - attachment to the USA. The disturbing thing is that the affection that manifested itself in my day to day feelings seems to have been broken, or at least damaged, by the frequency of the unpleasant feelings I now get.
This has happened unconsciously and has crept up on me over the past 18 months. I still visit dear friends and relatives in California, Iowa, Illinois and Massachusetts, but whereas in the past I would trot off to my airline with a sense of excitement, these days I do it with a slight feeling of dread and foreboding, like I was making a dental appointment. And that slight discomfort isn't about terrorism - I visit the Middle East without thinking about it at all - but about the behaviour of American officials towards me.
I don't like this. My friends haven't changed, my relatives haven't changed. But getting to them often (usually) hurts, and being there sometimes hurts. I fight it - in my mind my experience makes me a sort of fifth order terrorist victim. What I struggle with is that while I understand the US response, I also believe that the consequences of it are more damaging than the risk it attempts to ameliorate. My country - New Zealand - has one characteristic in common with pre 9/11 USA, the belief that our geography makes us immune to terrorist attack. I am very much aware that should there be such an attack here the psychological response would likely be very similar. But I think I would still find it ill-considered. And I speak as someone who was physically present close to an IRA mainland British bombing in Manchester. In my view if the USA sacrifices its open society to this threat, then the physical security purchased isn't worth the price, and the terroists have triumphed.
You are probably right about my being triggered to make a business decision I should have made a decade ago. It doesn't alter my basic point here, though, that one change has triggered another, and if that happens across a significant number of people there has been a social change.
If you are right, then my earlier decisions were not economically rational, but arose from my emotional - perhaps sentimental - attachment to the USA. The disturbing thing is that the affection that manifested itself in my day to day feelings seems to have been broken, or at least damaged, by the frequency of the unpleasant feelings I now get.
This has happened unconsciously and has crept up on me over the past 18 months. I still visit dear friends and relatives in California, Iowa, Illinois and Massachusetts, but whereas in the past I would trot off to my airline with a sense of excitement, these days I do it with a slight feeling of dread and foreboding, like I was making a dental appointment. And that slight discomfort isn't about terrorism - I visit the Middle East without thinking about it at all - but about the behaviour of American officials towards me.
I don't like this. My friends haven't changed, my relatives haven't changed. But getting to them often (usually) hurts, and being there sometimes hurts. I fight it - in my mind my experience makes me a sort of fifth order terrorist victim. What I struggle with is that while I understand the US response, I also believe that the consequences of it are more damaging than the risk it attempts to ameliorate. My country - New Zealand - has one characteristic in common with pre 9/11 USA, the belief that our geography makes us immune to terrorist attack. I am very much aware that should there be such an attack here the psychological response would likely be very similar. But I think I would still find it ill-considered. And I speak as someone who was physically present close to an IRA mainland British bombing in Manchester. In my view if the USA sacrifices its open society to this threat, then the physical security purchased isn't worth the price, and the terroists have triumphed.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a BA pilot who deliberately bids for trips heading to the USA - I would 'like to take issue with a number of points made on this forum , clearly often as a gut reaction due to mistaken or misplaced national pride , than as the result of logical thought .
The success of preventative measures is often impossible to judge - you are trying to prevent something . The measures put in place by the USA are far more pragmatic and logical than some of the nonsense put forward by the UK .
Having now been through the fingerprinting and 'photo three times , I can assure you all that it is becoming a far faster practice now that it is up and running , and last week , passengers and crew cleared immigration in the US faster than before .
If there were intelligence errors pre 9/11 as some writers so eagerly allege , then no nation on earth learns from its mistakes and moves forwards 'like the United States. No nation on earth has such a history of repeating the same mistakes as the U.K. , at the same time basking in an unfounded arrogance , an almost childish sense of misplaced national pride.
Here we have a government which allows free flow immigration - at the expense of the UK taxpayers . Elected to look after the security and welfare of the UK , it has'nt yet had the guts to deport that violence and hatred inciting hook-handed maniac from the Finsbury mosque - and people have the cheek to criticise another nation for looking to the welfare of its citizens and security . Rather than an automatic reaction as a result of misplaced - and frankly unfounded national pride - consider whether the US is not simply behaving bravely and wisely - in sharp contrast to the British and the French .A leader is elected to protect its citizens as best as it can ; my own government has'nt got the courage to do so . A nation can , incidentally , impose whatever conditions it 'likes on aircraft within its airspace - that is settled International Law - including the carriage of Air Marshalls- and I shall be delighted to carry them ; I feel more secure flying to the US than any other destination , and choose to accordingly , because I am far safer in the hands of the US legislators and subject to US measures , than I am under my own or any European governments.
The success of preventative measures is often impossible to judge - you are trying to prevent something . The measures put in place by the USA are far more pragmatic and logical than some of the nonsense put forward by the UK .
Having now been through the fingerprinting and 'photo three times , I can assure you all that it is becoming a far faster practice now that it is up and running , and last week , passengers and crew cleared immigration in the US faster than before .
If there were intelligence errors pre 9/11 as some writers so eagerly allege , then no nation on earth learns from its mistakes and moves forwards 'like the United States. No nation on earth has such a history of repeating the same mistakes as the U.K. , at the same time basking in an unfounded arrogance , an almost childish sense of misplaced national pride.
Here we have a government which allows free flow immigration - at the expense of the UK taxpayers . Elected to look after the security and welfare of the UK , it has'nt yet had the guts to deport that violence and hatred inciting hook-handed maniac from the Finsbury mosque - and people have the cheek to criticise another nation for looking to the welfare of its citizens and security . Rather than an automatic reaction as a result of misplaced - and frankly unfounded national pride - consider whether the US is not simply behaving bravely and wisely - in sharp contrast to the British and the French .A leader is elected to protect its citizens as best as it can ; my own government has'nt got the courage to do so . A nation can , incidentally , impose whatever conditions it 'likes on aircraft within its airspace - that is settled International Law - including the carriage of Air Marshalls- and I shall be delighted to carry them ; I feel more secure flying to the US than any other destination , and choose to accordingly , because I am far safer in the hands of the US legislators and subject to US measures , than I am under my own or any European governments.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I ask Rongotai, Boofhead and AASLF to please take their discussion about the merits or otherwise of doing business or visiting the USA to a different forum, please. This thread is about the current and other recent cancellations of specific flights to the USA due to 'credible intelligence'.
Whilst the consequences of such decisions may have a bearing on some peoples travel decisions the debate here is about the validity of the announcements and the apparent methods being used to implement them. Personally, I am highly sceptical about the decisions to make such public announcements that particular flights have been targeted. If they do indeed have such 'credible intelligence' then by announcing that fact without having in place an operation to trap the potential terrorists, all they appear to be doing is letting them know that they are 'listening out' for tid-bits of information. All the terrorists have to do now is keep on spreading disinformation and they can bring the airline industry to its knees. If it wasn't so serious it'd be comical.
No one is denying that there is enhanced security but what appears to be happening is a beefing up of areas that are easily and most likely to be bypassed. As I pointed out in my earlier post, there is a huge system in place to prevent pointy metal things being carried through from landside to airside at airports. There is very little in place apart from the off-chance that there MAY be an armed PSM or two on board SOME flights. We have nothing in place to question anyone trying to board a flight as to their intentions, obvious or otherwise. That, together with the fact that there are any number of items that can be purchased once past 'security' that could be used as weapons is the real weakness in the system and have no doubt that the terrorists will be looking for any flaws in the system.
The fact that there are new measures in place in the USA for arriving travellers is irrelevant to this discussion and, has been pointed out above by Macfloppy, it is not such a real problem. But... that is AFTER a flight has arrived in the USA. What we are talking about here is the very public announcements by the airlines that their flights have or will be cancelled based on intelligence received from the various governments and those governments announcements that they have 'credible intelligence' when in fact all we appear to have is backside padding for political masters.
Whilst the consequences of such decisions may have a bearing on some peoples travel decisions the debate here is about the validity of the announcements and the apparent methods being used to implement them. Personally, I am highly sceptical about the decisions to make such public announcements that particular flights have been targeted. If they do indeed have such 'credible intelligence' then by announcing that fact without having in place an operation to trap the potential terrorists, all they appear to be doing is letting them know that they are 'listening out' for tid-bits of information. All the terrorists have to do now is keep on spreading disinformation and they can bring the airline industry to its knees. If it wasn't so serious it'd be comical.
No one is denying that there is enhanced security but what appears to be happening is a beefing up of areas that are easily and most likely to be bypassed. As I pointed out in my earlier post, there is a huge system in place to prevent pointy metal things being carried through from landside to airside at airports. There is very little in place apart from the off-chance that there MAY be an armed PSM or two on board SOME flights. We have nothing in place to question anyone trying to board a flight as to their intentions, obvious or otherwise. That, together with the fact that there are any number of items that can be purchased once past 'security' that could be used as weapons is the real weakness in the system and have no doubt that the terrorists will be looking for any flaws in the system.
The fact that there are new measures in place in the USA for arriving travellers is irrelevant to this discussion and, has been pointed out above by Macfloppy, it is not such a real problem. But... that is AFTER a flight has arrived in the USA. What we are talking about here is the very public announcements by the airlines that their flights have or will be cancelled based on intelligence received from the various governments and those governments announcements that they have 'credible intelligence' when in fact all we appear to have is backside padding for political masters.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
U.S. Says No Plans to Ground New Flights
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: February 2, 2004
Filed at 3:03 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The ``specific and credible'' terrorist threats that led to the cancellation of seven flights have passed and there are no plans to ground any more flights, government officials said Monday.
``At this point we do not have any new threat reporting targeting specific flights like we did over the weekend,'' White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.
Six international flights from the United Kingdom and France and Continental Airlines Flight 1519 from Washington to Houston, site of the Super Bowl, were grounded Sunday and Monday after security concerns were raised by the Homeland Security Department.
Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said there was ``specific and credible intelligence information suggesting that al-Qaida would attack these flights on those dates.''
``It wasn't as specific as to method of attack,'' he said.
The cancellations were the first since December, when the nation's terror alert level was increased from elevated, or yellow, to high, or orange.
A senior law enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said some themes continue to emerge from intelligence collection: al-Qaida is determined to mount another large-scale attack and remains highly interested in aviation and weapons of mass destruction.
It's possible, the official said, that the two attack methods could be combined in some fashion but no specific plot has been reported.
The Continental flight was the first domestic flight to be canceled. Roehrkasse declined to provide details about the nature of the threat but said the federal agency and Continental ``worked closely on the matter.''
The flight was scheduled to take off from Dulles International Airport outside Washington at 5:45 p.m. EST Sunday and arrive at Bush Intercontinental Airport at 8:10 p.m. CST.
The National Football League's Super Bowl was being played Sunday evening at Reliant Stadium, approximately 27 miles from the Houston airport. However, a U.S. government official who spoke on condition of anonymity said the flight cancellation was not specifically connected to the Super Bowl.
Continental spokesman David Messing said he did not know what security concerns led to the cancellation. He said the decision to ground the flight was made ``because we were unable to get security clearance from the Department of Homeland Security.''
A Continental Airlines flight Sunday from Glasgow, Scotland, to Los Angeles with an intermediate stop in Newark, N.J., was canceled late Saturday because of security concerns, but there was no indication whether that was related to the Washington-Houston cancellation announced late Sunday.
The Scotland-Los Angeles flight was one of six U.S.-bound flight canceled Sunday and Monday because of security concerns. The U.S. government said it had fresh indications of al-Qaida's continued interest in targeting commercial planes flying to the United States.
British Airways canceled Flight 223 from London to Dulles for Sunday and Monday and Flight 207 from London to Miami on Sunday. Air France Flight 026 from Paris to Washington on Sunday and Monday.
A British pilots' union official expressed concern Monday over what it called the ``erratic'' nature of the security intelligence leading to the flight cancelations.
``It is the sort of thing that feeds public disquiet rather than resolves the concern of passengers, pilots and the U.K. industry as a whole,'' said Jim McAuslan, general secretary of the British Airline Pilots' Association, which represents nearly 90 percent of Britain's 9,200 commercial pilots.
McClellan defended the decision to ground the flights.
``When we have specific intelligence that comes to our attention, we act on that intelligence, we share it, and that's what you are seeing done here,'' he said.
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: February 2, 2004
Filed at 3:03 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The ``specific and credible'' terrorist threats that led to the cancellation of seven flights have passed and there are no plans to ground any more flights, government officials said Monday.
``At this point we do not have any new threat reporting targeting specific flights like we did over the weekend,'' White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.
Six international flights from the United Kingdom and France and Continental Airlines Flight 1519 from Washington to Houston, site of the Super Bowl, were grounded Sunday and Monday after security concerns were raised by the Homeland Security Department.
Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said there was ``specific and credible intelligence information suggesting that al-Qaida would attack these flights on those dates.''
``It wasn't as specific as to method of attack,'' he said.
The cancellations were the first since December, when the nation's terror alert level was increased from elevated, or yellow, to high, or orange.
A senior law enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said some themes continue to emerge from intelligence collection: al-Qaida is determined to mount another large-scale attack and remains highly interested in aviation and weapons of mass destruction.
It's possible, the official said, that the two attack methods could be combined in some fashion but no specific plot has been reported.
The Continental flight was the first domestic flight to be canceled. Roehrkasse declined to provide details about the nature of the threat but said the federal agency and Continental ``worked closely on the matter.''
The flight was scheduled to take off from Dulles International Airport outside Washington at 5:45 p.m. EST Sunday and arrive at Bush Intercontinental Airport at 8:10 p.m. CST.
The National Football League's Super Bowl was being played Sunday evening at Reliant Stadium, approximately 27 miles from the Houston airport. However, a U.S. government official who spoke on condition of anonymity said the flight cancellation was not specifically connected to the Super Bowl.
Continental spokesman David Messing said he did not know what security concerns led to the cancellation. He said the decision to ground the flight was made ``because we were unable to get security clearance from the Department of Homeland Security.''
A Continental Airlines flight Sunday from Glasgow, Scotland, to Los Angeles with an intermediate stop in Newark, N.J., was canceled late Saturday because of security concerns, but there was no indication whether that was related to the Washington-Houston cancellation announced late Sunday.
The Scotland-Los Angeles flight was one of six U.S.-bound flight canceled Sunday and Monday because of security concerns. The U.S. government said it had fresh indications of al-Qaida's continued interest in targeting commercial planes flying to the United States.
British Airways canceled Flight 223 from London to Dulles for Sunday and Monday and Flight 207 from London to Miami on Sunday. Air France Flight 026 from Paris to Washington on Sunday and Monday.
A British pilots' union official expressed concern Monday over what it called the ``erratic'' nature of the security intelligence leading to the flight cancelations.
``It is the sort of thing that feeds public disquiet rather than resolves the concern of passengers, pilots and the U.K. industry as a whole,'' said Jim McAuslan, general secretary of the British Airline Pilots' Association, which represents nearly 90 percent of Britain's 9,200 commercial pilots.
McClellan defended the decision to ground the flights.
``When we have specific intelligence that comes to our attention, we act on that intelligence, we share it, and that's what you are seeing done here,'' he said.
The Original Party Animal
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Around the corner
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...plans to ground flights
Can you plan to ground flights in connection with terrorists threats??
I thought it was more like a last hour decision.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DFW, Tx - USA
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny - yer second post is noted and will be obeyed. Please, would you note the THREE paragraphs in my post immediately below my comment on your first post - I did think those were dead-on the subject.
Still amazed at such a poor job we doing here about "trapping" the AQ types at the gate on suspect flights. But more than that, I strongly question the laxity we observe towards the "ground" folks, in all areas from the ramp rats to the caterers, etc. Easy enuf for them to plant a "bio" weapon on the plane. Easy enuf for an AQ operative to jump into the wheelwell of a plane at threshold "hold" and plant a "limpet" mine modified with a pressure trigger. In fact, our rules for "ground" simply suck, as proved by the "Red Team" from the Seals a few years ago. Heck, wasn't it this past year when a reporter from a UK newspaper/TV org. placed a piece of paper on an aircraft saying "bomb", and these folks were pure amatures!
We still have a long way to go to make flights really, meaningfully 'secure", and not just be "backside" cover for the politicians!
Still amazed at such a poor job we doing here about "trapping" the AQ types at the gate on suspect flights. But more than that, I strongly question the laxity we observe towards the "ground" folks, in all areas from the ramp rats to the caterers, etc. Easy enuf for them to plant a "bio" weapon on the plane. Easy enuf for an AQ operative to jump into the wheelwell of a plane at threshold "hold" and plant a "limpet" mine modified with a pressure trigger. In fact, our rules for "ground" simply suck, as proved by the "Red Team" from the Seals a few years ago. Heck, wasn't it this past year when a reporter from a UK newspaper/TV org. placed a piece of paper on an aircraft saying "bomb", and these folks were pure amatures!
We still have a long way to go to make flights really, meaningfully 'secure", and not just be "backside" cover for the politicians!
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA,
unfortunately, all of the examples you cited in your last post have always been deamed acceptable. Nothing on that score has ever changed. Security up untill now was simply a visual bandaid, but the realities were that even if a plane was blown up a couple of times a year with a loss of all on board flying would still be considerably safer than driving. So it was considered acceptable.
Infact, there is a monetary formula that is used by the FAA when deciding whether to implement a new rule or safety check that explicitly looks at the the number of lives at risk with the problem vs the number of people that would drive instead of fly because of the increase in ticket price vs. cost of the change and weighs the two figures to decide whether or not to implement something like fuel tank inerting... Tony Broderick once explained it over on AVSIG (he was the highest non political person in the FAA for the better part of a decade)
What changed on Sept 11, was the ability to use aicraft to attack targets on the ground. That was like trying to divide by zero and threw the equations all out of whack and was deamed unacceptable, and so here we are today. STill nobody really cares about a bomb on an aircraft, afterall the only people at risk are actually on the airplane.
As to catching the people at the airport... Yeah, in a perfect world the terrorist would be the only passenger to board the airacraft. Every other seat would be filled with SAS and green berets. Of course its not a perfect world, and AA denied Richard Reid boarding and kicked him back to the french authorities who cleared him for flight and made AA carry him the next day... After all, he was just a brit, not a terrorist...
Cheers
Wino
unfortunately, all of the examples you cited in your last post have always been deamed acceptable. Nothing on that score has ever changed. Security up untill now was simply a visual bandaid, but the realities were that even if a plane was blown up a couple of times a year with a loss of all on board flying would still be considerably safer than driving. So it was considered acceptable.
Infact, there is a monetary formula that is used by the FAA when deciding whether to implement a new rule or safety check that explicitly looks at the the number of lives at risk with the problem vs the number of people that would drive instead of fly because of the increase in ticket price vs. cost of the change and weighs the two figures to decide whether or not to implement something like fuel tank inerting... Tony Broderick once explained it over on AVSIG (he was the highest non political person in the FAA for the better part of a decade)
What changed on Sept 11, was the ability to use aicraft to attack targets on the ground. That was like trying to divide by zero and threw the equations all out of whack and was deamed unacceptable, and so here we are today. STill nobody really cares about a bomb on an aircraft, afterall the only people at risk are actually on the airplane.
As to catching the people at the airport... Yeah, in a perfect world the terrorist would be the only passenger to board the airacraft. Every other seat would be filled with SAS and green berets. Of course its not a perfect world, and AA denied Richard Reid boarding and kicked him back to the french authorities who cleared him for flight and made AA carry him the next day... After all, he was just a brit, not a terrorist...
Cheers
Wino
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
February 4, 2004
Ridge: Attack Possibly Averted Recently
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 3:02 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Even as the spy community comes under fire for faulty intelligence in Iraq, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said he believes recent actions taken in response to terrorist threat information have averted an attack.
``Do I personally? Yes,'' Ridge said Wednesday when asked if a strike has been prevented. ``But I don't know that we'll ever be able to confirm it. ... Proving an unknown is a difficult thing to do.''
A regular consumer of intelligence information, Ridge said he wouldn't agree with the assessment that the intelligence on Iraq was almost all wrong, as the CIA's former top weapons inspector, David Kay, has said. But Ridge wouldn't go into detail.
Instead, Ridge said he is satisfied with the access and quality of intelligence he is getting from agencies that gather it, like the CIA, as well as the department's ability to use it to make decisions.
``It is a good, solid relationship with the intelligence-gathering community,'' he said. ``Our relationship is satisfactory. From my point of view, whenever we have tasked them to the extent and ability that (they) can get back to us with information we requested -- again depending on whether or not there is a source they could extract it from -- they have.''
``I think our relationship is solid and is getting better every day,'' he said.
In a 50 minute discussion with reporters, Ridge acknowledged there has been tension recently with foreign governments over the string of flight cancellations, beginning around Christmas. Raising a hand in the air, Ridge took some responsibility for the problem, saying he initially went straight to European air carriers to discuss what to do -- ``Time was short,'' he said.
Ridge said he has since talked to his counterparts in France, Great Britain, Spain and Germany, and a better system now will allow simultaneous discussions with foreign airlines and sovereign governments. ``I would feel the same way if British intelligence had a piece of information affecting a domestic carrier, and they didn't call us first,'' he said.
When asked if the U.S. government's insistence on sky marshals for some flights coming from overseas created the tension, Ridge said: ``It may have contributed to it a bit.''
``Asking these folks to put air marshals on at the last minute was something they had not ever anticipated, and now they can anticipate it,'' he later said.
At root, the problem may come down to disagreements among the U.S., Great Britain and France over the assessments on the threat information. Ridge said there continues to be ``honest disagreement,'' though he thinks everyone now agrees -- ``with varying degrees of satisfaction'' -- that the right steps were taken.
As ``uncomfortable'' as the process was, he said the department continues to talk with Great Britain and France to develop international standards for dealing with information while still keeping planes in the air.
``Cancellation is absolutely, positively the last resort,'' Ridge said. ``It should always be in our back pocket.''
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/aponline/news/index.html
Ridge: Attack Possibly Averted Recently
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 3:02 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Even as the spy community comes under fire for faulty intelligence in Iraq, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said he believes recent actions taken in response to terrorist threat information have averted an attack.
``Do I personally? Yes,'' Ridge said Wednesday when asked if a strike has been prevented. ``But I don't know that we'll ever be able to confirm it. ... Proving an unknown is a difficult thing to do.''
A regular consumer of intelligence information, Ridge said he wouldn't agree with the assessment that the intelligence on Iraq was almost all wrong, as the CIA's former top weapons inspector, David Kay, has said. But Ridge wouldn't go into detail.
Instead, Ridge said he is satisfied with the access and quality of intelligence he is getting from agencies that gather it, like the CIA, as well as the department's ability to use it to make decisions.
``It is a good, solid relationship with the intelligence-gathering community,'' he said. ``Our relationship is satisfactory. From my point of view, whenever we have tasked them to the extent and ability that (they) can get back to us with information we requested -- again depending on whether or not there is a source they could extract it from -- they have.''
``I think our relationship is solid and is getting better every day,'' he said.
In a 50 minute discussion with reporters, Ridge acknowledged there has been tension recently with foreign governments over the string of flight cancellations, beginning around Christmas. Raising a hand in the air, Ridge took some responsibility for the problem, saying he initially went straight to European air carriers to discuss what to do -- ``Time was short,'' he said.
Ridge said he has since talked to his counterparts in France, Great Britain, Spain and Germany, and a better system now will allow simultaneous discussions with foreign airlines and sovereign governments. ``I would feel the same way if British intelligence had a piece of information affecting a domestic carrier, and they didn't call us first,'' he said.
When asked if the U.S. government's insistence on sky marshals for some flights coming from overseas created the tension, Ridge said: ``It may have contributed to it a bit.''
``Asking these folks to put air marshals on at the last minute was something they had not ever anticipated, and now they can anticipate it,'' he later said.
At root, the problem may come down to disagreements among the U.S., Great Britain and France over the assessments on the threat information. Ridge said there continues to be ``honest disagreement,'' though he thinks everyone now agrees -- ``with varying degrees of satisfaction'' -- that the right steps were taken.
As ``uncomfortable'' as the process was, he said the department continues to talk with Great Britain and France to develop international standards for dealing with information while still keeping planes in the air.
``Cancellation is absolutely, positively the last resort,'' Ridge said. ``It should always be in our back pocket.''
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/aponline/news/index.html
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: formally Alamo battleground, now the crocodile with palm trees!
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What changed on Sept 11, was the ability to use aicraft to attack targets on the ground. That was like trying to divide by zero and threw the equations all out of whack and was deamed unacceptable, and so here we are today. STill nobody really cares about a bomb on an aircraft, afterall the only people at risk are actually on the airplane.
) over PA has shown it. Yeah, they died but they fought. And this counts!7 7 7 7
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Squawk,
What exactly are you trying to say? What do you mean by "taken over"? The hijackers are operating the flight controls? Or just holding the pax and crew to ransom?
The resistance by the pax (and crew?) of the aircraft that crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11 may have been mounted after the hijackers assumed the controls.
Surely in future any crew will do its damnedest to prevent, at all costs, a hijacker from operating the flight controls.
I still believe that, in the case of the two flights that hit the WTC and the flight that crashed into the Pentagon, the crews allowed the hijackers to take control (not sure about the PA flight).
Rockhound
What exactly are you trying to say? What do you mean by "taken over"? The hijackers are operating the flight controls? Or just holding the pax and crew to ransom?
The resistance by the pax (and crew?) of the aircraft that crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11 may have been mounted after the hijackers assumed the controls.
Surely in future any crew will do its damnedest to prevent, at all costs, a hijacker from operating the flight controls.
I still believe that, in the case of the two flights that hit the WTC and the flight that crashed into the Pentagon, the crews allowed the hijackers to take control (not sure about the PA flight).
Rockhound
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"It is a good, solid relationship with the intelligence-gathering community,'' he said. "Our relationship is satisfactory. From my point of view, whenever we have tasked them to the extent and ability that (they) can get back to us with information we requested -- again depending on whether or not there is a source they could extract it from -- they have.''
"I think our relationship is solid and is getting better every day,'' he said.
"I think our relationship is solid and is getting better every day,'' he said.
It just angers me to see these politicians talking absolute rubbish, trying to give the impression that they have actually done or are doing something when in fact most us who work in the industry know that it is little more than eye candy for the public. I for one do not want to wait until the next time there is a terrorist atrocity that hammers another nail in the coffin of our industry just because some egotistical politician in too far up his or her own backside to make decisions based on hard evidence and sound advice instead of vanity and @rse covering.
I just finished reading the book 'Catch me if you can' by Frank Abignale. Much better than the film and in a published interview at the end he is asked what he thinks about the current security regime since 9/11 and interestingly he too believes that profiling is the way to go... and that from someone who was an expert in gaining access to a flight deck, even if it was quite some time ago. Until we we get politicians who are not more interested in the number of sound bites they can get rather than making sure the job is done properly, I think we are setting ourselves up for another atrocity using an aircraft. It probably won't be anything we expect but with the obvious lack of co-operation between the various agencies as highlighted by the comments at the start of this post (I would expect the relationship between the various agencies to be 'excellent', not just 'satisfactory' by now. They've had over two years to get their acts together after all!) together with a politician who would rather highlight bovine excrement rather than just quietly get on with the job, we are likely to be just as surprised once again in the future!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite so, Danny. Dumbed-down PR is all it is - had there been a successful, tangible aversion of a terrorist act, it would have been huge news and milked for all its worth for days/weeks.
This is 2004, so the bovine excrement from the present administration may be expected to increase the nearer we get to November. Of course the WMD 'inquiry' isn't due until 2005 quel surprise ! and I see the 9/11 'inquiry' deadline has also been extended (to July at present, but if it contains anything damaging to the Bush cabal, I doubt it will see the light this year). Sigh.
This is 2004, so the bovine excrement from the present administration may be expected to increase the nearer we get to November. Of course the WMD 'inquiry' isn't due until 2005 quel surprise ! and I see the 9/11 'inquiry' deadline has also been extended (to July at present, but if it contains anything damaging to the Bush cabal, I doubt it will see the light this year). Sigh.
