Manchester Airport Security Flaws Exposed on TV
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Brunei
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1000 passengers from the country where Osama Bin Laden himself is believed to be hiding passed through the airport and only 3 pax bags were searched.
Pause for a second and think.
O.K. perhaps this suggests that security at Manchester is below standard.
Or perhaps it suggests that this entire bandwagon of security, security, and even more security is not as vital as some would have us believe.
Perhaps the people with vested interests (financial / political) in creating empires in the security industry are being shown here that the overwhelming majority of airline passengers and crew are not security threats and need not be treated as such.
How many days had the metal detector been u/s ?
And how many aircraft departing Manchester have been hijacked or blown up etc. during that time ?
Was the number of hijackings etc greater or lesser than during the time the metal detector was working?
I know that all it takes is one evil person to commit attrocities, and because of that, security is necessary.
The point I'm trying to make is,
before watching the BBC article, putting our hands to our face and shouting in rage and horror at the suggested failures in security,
perhaps we should watch the article and decide if there are other messages.
Or put more simply,
try thinking for yourself rather than thinking what the BBC tell you to think.
Cheers
Pause for a second and think.
O.K. perhaps this suggests that security at Manchester is below standard.
Or perhaps it suggests that this entire bandwagon of security, security, and even more security is not as vital as some would have us believe.
Perhaps the people with vested interests (financial / political) in creating empires in the security industry are being shown here that the overwhelming majority of airline passengers and crew are not security threats and need not be treated as such.
How many days had the metal detector been u/s ?
And how many aircraft departing Manchester have been hijacked or blown up etc. during that time ?
Was the number of hijackings etc greater or lesser than during the time the metal detector was working?
I know that all it takes is one evil person to commit attrocities, and because of that, security is necessary.
The point I'm trying to make is,
before watching the BBC article, putting our hands to our face and shouting in rage and horror at the suggested failures in security,
perhaps we should watch the article and decide if there are other messages.
Or put more simply,
try thinking for yourself rather than thinking what the BBC tell you to think.
Cheers
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here we go again. I can almost guarantee that this thread will go in the same direction as all the others where the press, be it the BBC, The Sun newspaper, or anybody else for that matter, reports a serious breech of security. It will be met by the usual "Oh it`s just some tabloid hack looking for a cheap story again. What do they know anyway?" response.
The fact of the matter is that security at all of the U.K airports where I have been, including the one where I work, is not good enough. Aircraft should NOT be left open overnight. There are many places, accessible during flight where a weapon could be hidden, and retieved later by someone with a fanatical mind. This weapon could quite easily have been brought onto the airpot during the night by a cleaner/caterer/engineer or whoever, and easily made it through security because the van search was "minimal" to say the least (more of a wlkround than a search), as they are most of the time, unless their supervisor or the D of T is on the airfield. But hey, maybe that doesn`t bother some people (quote "wow, airplanes open overnight!!") as they can`t get into the flight deck these days anyway. Lucky for you guys up the front then. Let`s just hope that your family or friends aren`t travelling down the back having their throats cut eh?
As for the metal detectors. How anyone can justify what is reported is beyond me. If you turned up for duty and the passengers were all being filed around the detectors, and when you asked what was going on you were told "well, they`re not working anyway", you would not operate that service, claiming there had been a major security breech. But I guess it`s OK if the security don`t TELL you that they`re not working, because then you can have a clear concience, and blame anything that happens on them. Comments like "How many aircraft departing manchester have been hijacked or blown up etc during that time" when the metal detector had not been working, are both unhelpful and frankly a childish and appalling way to look at the problem.
The security in this country is still a joke. That is a fact. It`s no good burying your head in the sand, or blaming everybody else. Instead of getting angry at the people whose job it is to report these security lapses, why not get angry at the people whose job it is to prevent them?
And lastly, when you say things like "well lets sneak a nice little surprise into their birmingham offices overnight then and let the competition loose", you`re sounding like a child. And also forgetting the massive car bomb left outside television centre perhaps........
It`s not often I post (and thank God most of you will be saying). This is just my opinion.............
The fact of the matter is that security at all of the U.K airports where I have been, including the one where I work, is not good enough. Aircraft should NOT be left open overnight. There are many places, accessible during flight where a weapon could be hidden, and retieved later by someone with a fanatical mind. This weapon could quite easily have been brought onto the airpot during the night by a cleaner/caterer/engineer or whoever, and easily made it through security because the van search was "minimal" to say the least (more of a wlkround than a search), as they are most of the time, unless their supervisor or the D of T is on the airfield. But hey, maybe that doesn`t bother some people (quote "wow, airplanes open overnight!!") as they can`t get into the flight deck these days anyway. Lucky for you guys up the front then. Let`s just hope that your family or friends aren`t travelling down the back having their throats cut eh?
As for the metal detectors. How anyone can justify what is reported is beyond me. If you turned up for duty and the passengers were all being filed around the detectors, and when you asked what was going on you were told "well, they`re not working anyway", you would not operate that service, claiming there had been a major security breech. But I guess it`s OK if the security don`t TELL you that they`re not working, because then you can have a clear concience, and blame anything that happens on them. Comments like "How many aircraft departing manchester have been hijacked or blown up etc during that time" when the metal detector had not been working, are both unhelpful and frankly a childish and appalling way to look at the problem.
The security in this country is still a joke. That is a fact. It`s no good burying your head in the sand, or blaming everybody else. Instead of getting angry at the people whose job it is to report these security lapses, why not get angry at the people whose job it is to prevent them?
And lastly, when you say things like "well lets sneak a nice little surprise into their birmingham offices overnight then and let the competition loose", you`re sounding like a child. And also forgetting the massive car bomb left outside television centre perhaps........
It`s not often I post (and thank God most of you will be saying). This is just my opinion.............
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: behind the lens
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There should not be a problem leaving a plane open and unattended in the RZ of a major international airport............presuming we could trust those employed in the RZ.
Get back to basics - these bogus people shouldn't get in.
Having worked airside for more years than I care to mention, it is utterly insulting to the majority in a like situation to have our integrity brought into disrepute because of these "journalists" who don't play by the rules knowing they'll evade prosecution.
Get back to basics - these bogus people shouldn't get in.
Having worked airside for more years than I care to mention, it is utterly insulting to the majority in a like situation to have our integrity brought into disrepute because of these "journalists" who don't play by the rules knowing they'll evade prosecution.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 870
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anybody who thinks any such 'revelation' about security or any other aspect of the vulnerabilities of aviation (or indeed any of our transport systems) is unknown to potential terrorists at this point in time is a bigger fool than the journalists who produce these scoops.
Terrorists don't sit around all day reading the Sun and watching Trisha, they're slightly smarter than that and unfortunately need to be given some credit for their organisational abilities and intelligence, whether individually or collectively. Nothing in this programme is likely to be unknown to them.
That said, I currently fail to see the usefulness of such a programme beyond time-honoured tabloid sensationalism to induce the public and politicians into unwelcome 'knee-jerk' reactions. Only time will tell, and I reserve judgement until I have seen the programme.
Terrorists don't sit around all day reading the Sun and watching Trisha, they're slightly smarter than that and unfortunately need to be given some credit for their organisational abilities and intelligence, whether individually or collectively. Nothing in this programme is likely to be unknown to them.
That said, I currently fail to see the usefulness of such a programme beyond time-honoured tabloid sensationalism to induce the public and politicians into unwelcome 'knee-jerk' reactions. Only time will tell, and I reserve judgement until I have seen the programme.
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,373
Received 118 Likes
on
85 Posts
The lunch time local BBC News carried a preview ( promo ! ) of the programme and one rather contradictory point seemed to emerge. Notably said reporter who claimed to have gained access to aircraft with doors open. She was shown gazing wistfully at a MYT DC 10 and a BY 767--both with doors closed and steps attached. She comments to the effect that, " all you have to do is lift a little lever and you are in the Cabin"--this was followed by a very "hushed and conspiritorial" commentary in the 767--presumably for dramatic effect 
However, it begs the question as to how she gained the authority and expertise to open and close a Cabin door. Most members of the public have no idea of how a door opens / closes anyway. On the surface, this negates her claim re. access to open aircraft and suggests this programme will be more sensationalist orientated than a serious documentary---which, I have to say, on the basis of the ham actor reporter I have seen so far, is sadly going to be the case.
It will be interesting to see how deeply the programme goes into the causal factors concerning these lapses--and in particular the management failings of Manchester Airport with regard to staff cuts / rosters and cost savings.
I have to say though, whilst security is a major issue, I agree with the post by Wings
and the observations made therein so I will view the programme with a very open mind.
However, it begs the question as to how she gained the authority and expertise to open and close a Cabin door. Most members of the public have no idea of how a door opens / closes anyway. On the surface, this negates her claim re. access to open aircraft and suggests this programme will be more sensationalist orientated than a serious documentary---which, I have to say, on the basis of the ham actor reporter I have seen so far, is sadly going to be the case. It will be interesting to see how deeply the programme goes into the causal factors concerning these lapses--and in particular the management failings of Manchester Airport with regard to staff cuts / rosters and cost savings.
I have to say though, whilst security is a major issue, I agree with the post by Wings
and the observations made therein so I will view the programme with a very open mind.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How do these people gain the expertise to open a cabin door? They probably read the big writing on it that says "pull lever to open door". Or maybe they just follow the big red arrow. It isn`t exactly rocket science opening a main entry door.
Besides which, anyone who thinks a terrorist who plans to put something on an aircraft is going to get as far as the door, only to be flummoxed by it, and go away with his tail between his legs, is a fool. As a previous poster has said, while me may deplore what these people are trying to do, we have to give them a bit more credit. They haven`t spend their whole lives in a desert.
Besides which, anyone who thinks a terrorist who plans to put something on an aircraft is going to get as far as the door, only to be flummoxed by it, and go away with his tail between his legs, is a fool. As a previous poster has said, while me may deplore what these people are trying to do, we have to give them a bit more credit. They haven`t spend their whole lives in a desert.
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,373
Received 118 Likes
on
85 Posts
True, there are usually directions as to how to open a Cabin Door, but, in this instance, it was being done on a covert basis, it was night / subdued lighting and how many people would know how to depress the cover,. lift the handle, push open a 767 door and then close it again---all at the first attempt ?. I have seen crew and engs. alike be wary of the doors on their first encounter so how can a journo ---without any known previous contact with an a/c do this with such ease on her first attempt?. Not picking an argument here, just pointing out the facts as I perceive them and my reasons for commenting.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ceedee.....
I can asure you that everything that you mentioned happens accross the country.
This happened today.......
*Today the staffing levels had been low. A massive line of people waiting to pass through security tailing back beond the doors. Airport Terminal Officer arrives on site, this quickly followed be the Airport Security Managers, Contract Manager and Aviation Security Training Officers. Get the passengers through, quick, get them through!! The idea that someone could miss their flight being more important than the security of the flight.
*DfT bag search requirements. Staff are told not to carry out the correct proceedure and are told to falsify paperwork. The airport authority knows this is done. Persons carrying out the correct proceedures are removed from their post for slowing down the passenger flows. They are then given other duties away from the public domain.
*The ramp only has one security person on it and even then, it's only if there are the staffing levels to allow for this or if the Dft are on site.
*The staff are told when the DfT are on site by the security Supervisors and Team Leaders and told to adhere to proceedures. Staff are often moved around the site to follow the DfT to provide the correct staffing levels at the various posts.
*The x-ray equiptment regularly misses bags as they are scanned because of the enormous volume of bags going through the scanner. The required distance between the bags is not undertaken. A set distance allows for the maximum length of time to view the bag on screen. Only one item should be viewed at a time. The actual figure is as many as three bags at a time, or less than two seconds viewing time. Remember, how long does a doctor has to view a bone fracture?
*The management only promote yes men. Supervisors who carry out correct proceedure and slow the flow of passengers down are swiftly removed from their possition and are demoted.
The list goes on and on. What is the answer? Firstly, the Aviation Security Officers are *underpaid. Cleaners at the airport get more money for emptying dustbins and mopping floors. People have been known to leave Aviation Security to be an Airport Cleaner at this airport.
*The airport hires the aviation security contract to the company who offers the best value for money. What we may class as value for money is certainly different from the managements idea of value for money.
*Aviation Security Officers here work 12 hour shifts on a regular basis, working as many as 66 hours in a row. 12 hour shifts often start between 0300 and 0400. Having had no sleep the night before, the officers are then expected to work x-ray machines. The managers are not interented in the well being of their staff.
*The people are in place to carry out the job properly, but the industry should be put into full government control. The airport authorities accross the contry would then be forced into having propper provision for aviation security.
This happened today.......
*Today the staffing levels had been low. A massive line of people waiting to pass through security tailing back beond the doors. Airport Terminal Officer arrives on site, this quickly followed be the Airport Security Managers, Contract Manager and Aviation Security Training Officers. Get the passengers through, quick, get them through!! The idea that someone could miss their flight being more important than the security of the flight.
*DfT bag search requirements. Staff are told not to carry out the correct proceedure and are told to falsify paperwork. The airport authority knows this is done. Persons carrying out the correct proceedures are removed from their post for slowing down the passenger flows. They are then given other duties away from the public domain.
*The ramp only has one security person on it and even then, it's only if there are the staffing levels to allow for this or if the Dft are on site.
*The staff are told when the DfT are on site by the security Supervisors and Team Leaders and told to adhere to proceedures. Staff are often moved around the site to follow the DfT to provide the correct staffing levels at the various posts.
*The x-ray equiptment regularly misses bags as they are scanned because of the enormous volume of bags going through the scanner. The required distance between the bags is not undertaken. A set distance allows for the maximum length of time to view the bag on screen. Only one item should be viewed at a time. The actual figure is as many as three bags at a time, or less than two seconds viewing time. Remember, how long does a doctor has to view a bone fracture?
*The management only promote yes men. Supervisors who carry out correct proceedure and slow the flow of passengers down are swiftly removed from their possition and are demoted.
The list goes on and on. What is the answer? Firstly, the Aviation Security Officers are *underpaid. Cleaners at the airport get more money for emptying dustbins and mopping floors. People have been known to leave Aviation Security to be an Airport Cleaner at this airport.
*The airport hires the aviation security contract to the company who offers the best value for money. What we may class as value for money is certainly different from the managements idea of value for money.
*Aviation Security Officers here work 12 hour shifts on a regular basis, working as many as 66 hours in a row. 12 hour shifts often start between 0300 and 0400. Having had no sleep the night before, the officers are then expected to work x-ray machines. The managers are not interented in the well being of their staff.
*The people are in place to carry out the job properly, but the industry should be put into full government control. The airport authorities accross the contry would then be forced into having propper provision for aviation security.
Last edited by Leodis; 6th Sep 2004 at 19:19.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly off topic, but here's a good one for you.
At a UK airport recently (not MAN), the ground staff quite correctly in accordance with DfT rules X-rayed all the (8) passenger's bags before letting them board. Not a single comment to them or to me about the fact (which I knew in advance) that every bag contained a gun!!
Security??
At a UK airport recently (not MAN), the ground staff quite correctly in accordance with DfT rules X-rayed all the (8) passenger's bags before letting them board. Not a single comment to them or to me about the fact (which I knew in advance) that every bag contained a gun!!
Security??
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: HON121º/14 NM
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I expect that the reporter found out how to open the door to the aeroplane by asking someone whilst sat in their rest room, or over lunch or something. it's not rocket science, as someone else so eruditely noted earlier.
Until we all watch the programme tonight it is very difficult to make any sensible comment about this particular investigation.
What astounds me is that we hear of these breaches of security by journalists on almost a weekly basis. How come the system cannot react to prevent further occurances, or do they just not report the failed attempts? Probably not. I agree with all the comments about Disclosure Scotland being an absolute farce. I am at a loss to know how a proper background check can be done on an individual for £13. Maybe they do an Ask Jeeves and a Google. Any of us who have undergone vetting (both positive and negative) for other jobs, particularly in the Services would know how long those searches take, and cost, and how thourogh the results are.
And, as already noted, how are you going to get effective staff on the minimum wage? I would prefer to see the government spend more money on the police force and have a much higher visible police profile (as well as any plain clothes element that may already be deployed) in UK airports. At the moment the problem seems to be about the airport's operating bottom line, rather than dealing with the problem. It's great to see 4 coppers in T1 at LHr with MP5s (one between two, mind you), but it would be much greater (excuse the grammer) to see 8 or more. T1 is a big manor, and more has to be better. I would feel better if there were police on the security gates to supervise the security companies. I don't think it would be a waste of a highly trained resource, before anyone says that. I think it would be a good use of a highly trained resource.
Until we all watch the programme tonight it is very difficult to make any sensible comment about this particular investigation.
What astounds me is that we hear of these breaches of security by journalists on almost a weekly basis. How come the system cannot react to prevent further occurances, or do they just not report the failed attempts? Probably not. I agree with all the comments about Disclosure Scotland being an absolute farce. I am at a loss to know how a proper background check can be done on an individual for £13. Maybe they do an Ask Jeeves and a Google. Any of us who have undergone vetting (both positive and negative) for other jobs, particularly in the Services would know how long those searches take, and cost, and how thourogh the results are.
And, as already noted, how are you going to get effective staff on the minimum wage? I would prefer to see the government spend more money on the police force and have a much higher visible police profile (as well as any plain clothes element that may already be deployed) in UK airports. At the moment the problem seems to be about the airport's operating bottom line, rather than dealing with the problem. It's great to see 4 coppers in T1 at LHr with MP5s (one between two, mind you), but it would be much greater (excuse the grammer) to see 8 or more. T1 is a big manor, and more has to be better. I would feel better if there were police on the security gates to supervise the security companies. I don't think it would be a waste of a highly trained resource, before anyone says that. I think it would be a good use of a highly trained resource.
Manchesters Most Wanted PPRuNer
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a poorly executed and presented programme, overall.
True, the events shown were concerning to say the least.
I was expecting, yet deeply dreading, something truly damning.
Instead I watched an amateurish botch of an "investigation" in which most of the "evidence" was pure here-say with a pretty face.
True, the events shown were concerning to say the least.
I was expecting, yet deeply dreading, something truly damning.
Instead I watched an amateurish botch of an "investigation" in which most of the "evidence" was pure here-say with a pretty face.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Niteflight...why?
It put the point accross, poor vetting, poor supervision poor security and cross checks. Attitude of team leaders was 'who cares'......
The reply from the airport authority was management bulls**t, albeit they seem to have gone into panic behind the scenes. The DfT inspectors are still as obvious as a large cow in the drivers seat of your car, and she managed to get into the ristricted area when she's not even on duty!!!!!!!
Hearsay is evidence not known first hand....there was some of that yes, but evidence of foot patrols being fiddled was not, evidence of the attitude of supervisors was not, evidence of the obvious nature of the DfT inspectors again was not hearsay. She gave direct evidence of the number of bags she searched compared to the written record, again not hearsay evidence.
It put the point accross, poor vetting, poor supervision poor security and cross checks. Attitude of team leaders was 'who cares'......
The reply from the airport authority was management bulls**t, albeit they seem to have gone into panic behind the scenes. The DfT inspectors are still as obvious as a large cow in the drivers seat of your car, and she managed to get into the ristricted area when she's not even on duty!!!!!!!
Hearsay is evidence not known first hand....there was some of that yes, but evidence of foot patrols being fiddled was not, evidence of the attitude of supervisors was not, evidence of the obvious nature of the DfT inspectors again was not hearsay. She gave direct evidence of the number of bags she searched compared to the written record, again not hearsay evidence.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: LGW
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well niteflite01, it will be amateurish won't it, cause she is undercover, and will not have the best of equipment to use will she. At least she has identified some serious failings amongst the baggage screening.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: EGCC
Age: 74
Posts: 979
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst it is obvious that there are many lapses in security, it is a shame that the BBC did not try to make a better programme out of what the gained.
The whole thing seemed to amateurish. The interviews with the informant - so enthralling that I have already forgotten his 'name' - where so blatantly read from a script.
The American DFT guy having is bag checked appeared to be wearing either an airport visitors pass or at the very least a badge saying 'look at me'.
I can not and will not condone the attitude of the workforce with regards to massaging figures, and the airport needs to be seen to be taking active steps to promote a new approach to it's security.
Hopefully the army of aviation enthusiasts will continue to provide an additional layer of security on the 'southside' mounds. They probably are more aware of who is around at anytime, and I am sure many keep a close eye on what is going on.
Well those are my initial observations. A programme that needed a far better producer to make you stay awake, and a presenter who had no charisma at all and who seemed to be trying to find things to film to fill the time - too many shots of the Terminal 1 food hall.
Scottie Dog
The whole thing seemed to amateurish. The interviews with the informant - so enthralling that I have already forgotten his 'name' - where so blatantly read from a script.
The American DFT guy having is bag checked appeared to be wearing either an airport visitors pass or at the very least a badge saying 'look at me'.
I can not and will not condone the attitude of the workforce with regards to massaging figures, and the airport needs to be seen to be taking active steps to promote a new approach to it's security.
Hopefully the army of aviation enthusiasts will continue to provide an additional layer of security on the 'southside' mounds. They probably are more aware of who is around at anytime, and I am sure many keep a close eye on what is going on.
Well those are my initial observations. A programme that needed a far better producer to make you stay awake, and a presenter who had no charisma at all and who seemed to be trying to find things to film to fill the time - too many shots of the Terminal 1 food hall.
Scottie Dog
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just seen this program on BBC 1, and it's EXTREMLY worrying to say the least.
How can an airport employ individuals who fake data, don’t take ANY sort of steps to find the flaws in security checks, that “supposedly” will ensure passenger safety.
Passenger/PILOT! safety basically is NON EXISTANT, and I’m about to go into this industry, and about to start ATPL ground school, and this is just a bit of a concern.
You would have thought that September 11th would have woken the world up to the risks, but seeing this program makes me feel even more vulnerable than ever before, and we’re just asking for trouble!
People say Aviation is the safest type of transportation, try and prove this then! It would be much safer flying for the RAF at this rate!
The desire to become a pilot is too great, from a young age, while in the long run; it could be the most expensive way to an early grave - literally!
Many of the pilots on this forum properly are aware of lapse in security at UK airports, and didn't need to watch the program.
Personally, I'd like to send all these personnel onto an a/c with a "fake" terrorist, and give them a taste of what they deserve, or maybe just sack the whole lot.
The other worry (which wasn’t covered in the program), GA a/c tend to be unlocked as well!
WHY do we have to wait until something bad happens to see RESULTS?
…………This is what you get when company profitability comes first and passenger/pilot safety being the last thing on the lists.
How can an airport employ individuals who fake data, don’t take ANY sort of steps to find the flaws in security checks, that “supposedly” will ensure passenger safety.
Passenger/PILOT! safety basically is NON EXISTANT, and I’m about to go into this industry, and about to start ATPL ground school, and this is just a bit of a concern.
You would have thought that September 11th would have woken the world up to the risks, but seeing this program makes me feel even more vulnerable than ever before, and we’re just asking for trouble!
People say Aviation is the safest type of transportation, try and prove this then! It would be much safer flying for the RAF at this rate!
The desire to become a pilot is too great, from a young age, while in the long run; it could be the most expensive way to an early grave - literally!
Many of the pilots on this forum properly are aware of lapse in security at UK airports, and didn't need to watch the program.
Personally, I'd like to send all these personnel onto an a/c with a "fake" terrorist, and give them a taste of what they deserve, or maybe just sack the whole lot.
The other worry (which wasn’t covered in the program), GA a/c tend to be unlocked as well!
WHY do we have to wait until something bad happens to see RESULTS?
…………This is what you get when company profitability comes first and passenger/pilot safety being the last thing on the lists.
Manchesters Most Wanted PPRuNer
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Investigative journalism is supposed to be dramatic, well written and well constructed enough to bring people's attention to a subject matter serious enough to warrant the time and effort taken to gather the information, in a clear and concise way.
Not simply bore them to tears with some arty shots of the inside of a sparsely decorated city centre flat (nice sofa by the way), about 10 minutes footage of said journalist strolling through various urban and rural scenes looking pretty, a handy "where to spot" guide for the airport's aviation enthusiasts, 10 minutes on how worried the journalist was about getting her camera equipment into her uniform and through the detectors, and, to top it off, the rest of the programme discussing seemingly inconsequential and uncorroborated "evidence" from an anonymous source without even the courage of his own convictions to actually do something, something worthwhile, something official, about it in person.
All of this whilst he was and is, of course, still taking the supposedly evil company dollar.
I can't really comment about film quality sadly my friend as I'm no expert. I am though somewhat of an armchair expert in decent, worthwhile, fact-laden and constructive journalism.
Something this evening's programme certainly wasn't, in my humble opinion.
Not simply bore them to tears with some arty shots of the inside of a sparsely decorated city centre flat (nice sofa by the way), about 10 minutes footage of said journalist strolling through various urban and rural scenes looking pretty, a handy "where to spot" guide for the airport's aviation enthusiasts, 10 minutes on how worried the journalist was about getting her camera equipment into her uniform and through the detectors, and, to top it off, the rest of the programme discussing seemingly inconsequential and uncorroborated "evidence" from an anonymous source without even the courage of his own convictions to actually do something, something worthwhile, something official, about it in person.
All of this whilst he was and is, of course, still taking the supposedly evil company dollar.
I can't really comment about film quality sadly my friend as I'm no expert. I am though somewhat of an armchair expert in decent, worthwhile, fact-laden and constructive journalism.
Something this evening's programme certainly wasn't, in my humble opinion.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North West
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well i think it was a good program...maybe it will make the fat cats at MAN wake up and smell the coffee!!
i work on the ramp at manchester and i know how bad security is... u never get searched the way u should and most of the time staff to busy chatting etc to look at ur bag going threw the x-ray etc
it will be just like everything else .....it will take another major incident to get things right!!
it only takes one nutter to get something on an aircraft ..knife,etc etc,a passenger or a airport worker...its that simple
i dont know about u guys...but i wouldnt wanna be on that plane,in the cabin or the flightdeck in the sky when the s*** hits the fan
i work on the ramp at manchester and i know how bad security is... u never get searched the way u should and most of the time staff to busy chatting etc to look at ur bag going threw the x-ray etc
it will be just like everything else .....it will take another major incident to get things right!!
it only takes one nutter to get something on an aircraft ..knife,etc etc,a passenger or a airport worker...its that simple
i dont know about u guys...but i wouldnt wanna be on that plane,in the cabin or the flightdeck in the sky when the s*** hits the fan
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of the programme was nonsense -for example filming on the raised ground by 24 threshold with a telephoto lense to make it look like there is no fence (there is in fact a very effective one, barbed wire and all).
also I had to laugh at the patronising tone of the US security "expert", like there's never been a lapse in security there - Wasn't it a US airport security guard arrested recently at LGW with a revolver and ammunition?
also I had to laugh at the patronising tone of the US security "expert", like there's never been a lapse in security there - Wasn't it a US airport security guard arrested recently at LGW with a revolver and ammunition?