Manchester Airport Security Flaws Exposed on TV
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: EGCC
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly any spelling mistakes are beer induced!.
I found the program to be worrying in many aspects. I think it’s easy to hammer the "beeb" for a poor program, but looking at the whole picture and how the information had to be obtained I would go as so far as to say they did a fair job.
I found the “figure massaging” a most worrying trend, and the footage of the guy pretending to X-Ray bags when the machine was clearly not operational was just downright madness.
I've worked in environments in the past where "targets must be met at all costs" and I must admit that EGCC is very reminiscent of that, unfortunately the big difference is that if I massaged the figures th MD was happy and I had a few P**s*d off customers, but at EGCC you could end up with something far far worse.
One thing that did strike me was when the journo was in the plane that was “left open” why were all of the interior lights on? I don’t know much about large birds but it did seem strange that she could get on a fully illuminated plane at somewhere near 2am?
Anyhow that’s my beer induced two-cents/Penneth!
Cipher
I found the program to be worrying in many aspects. I think it’s easy to hammer the "beeb" for a poor program, but looking at the whole picture and how the information had to be obtained I would go as so far as to say they did a fair job.
I found the “figure massaging” a most worrying trend, and the footage of the guy pretending to X-Ray bags when the machine was clearly not operational was just downright madness.
I've worked in environments in the past where "targets must be met at all costs" and I must admit that EGCC is very reminiscent of that, unfortunately the big difference is that if I massaged the figures th MD was happy and I had a few P**s*d off customers, but at EGCC you could end up with something far far worse.
One thing that did strike me was when the journo was in the plane that was “left open” why were all of the interior lights on? I don’t know much about large birds but it did seem strange that she could get on a fully illuminated plane at somewhere near 2am?
Anyhow that’s my beer induced two-cents/Penneth!
Cipher
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Newcastle
Age: 40
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would have been more constructive going to the DfT with the evidence instead of trying to make an hour long programme out of a few weak video clips.
As with the previous messages the only MAJOR security problem I could see was the number fiddling.
The security fence 'disappearing' southside made me fall off my chair - how high would that fence have to be to be seen from the top of the hill with the camera in the grass??
Also, does working as a journalist give you the right to lie on a reference form? Last time I checked it was illegal. I take it the BBC and the other investigative journalist knew what she was doing when they signed for the 5-year employment check everyone has to go through?
As with the previous messages the only MAJOR security problem I could see was the number fiddling.
The security fence 'disappearing' southside made me fall off my chair - how high would that fence have to be to be seen from the top of the hill with the camera in the grass??
Also, does working as a journalist give you the right to lie on a reference form? Last time I checked it was illegal. I take it the BBC and the other investigative journalist knew what she was doing when they signed for the 5-year employment check everyone has to go through?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: EGNT
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote from sacktheboard
"MAN is probably the only airport in the world that
sacked halve its workforce and slashed the remainders wages
by over 40% including inferior terms and conditions with Sh*** rosters only MONTHS AFTER 9/11"
Not quite. The very same thing has happened at NCL. Not just to Security but across the board from baggage and passenger services through the AFS and ATC. And for what reason. Well to lower the costs far enough for the to$$er who is now the aiport chief exec to entice sleazyJet in. They (sleazy) are charged a fraction per passenger for handling than the rest of the airlines that operate here (except possibly for Ryanair). This is at the expense of everybody who has had their wages slashed, pensions removed, holiday entitlement reduced and shift patterns destroyed. No wonder that people have little inclination to achieve targets when some halfwit (who incidentally has rewarded himself with a new Porche Carrera 4 which sits under 24 hour surveillance outside the security post in which sit the very people he has shafted) has ruined many peoples livelihoods!
Actually it wouldn't suprise me if someone topped him.
"MAN is probably the only airport in the world that
sacked halve its workforce and slashed the remainders wages
by over 40% including inferior terms and conditions with Sh*** rosters only MONTHS AFTER 9/11"
Not quite. The very same thing has happened at NCL. Not just to Security but across the board from baggage and passenger services through the AFS and ATC. And for what reason. Well to lower the costs far enough for the to$$er who is now the aiport chief exec to entice sleazyJet in. They (sleazy) are charged a fraction per passenger for handling than the rest of the airlines that operate here (except possibly for Ryanair). This is at the expense of everybody who has had their wages slashed, pensions removed, holiday entitlement reduced and shift patterns destroyed. No wonder that people have little inclination to achieve targets when some halfwit (who incidentally has rewarded himself with a new Porche Carrera 4 which sits under 24 hour surveillance outside the security post in which sit the very people he has shafted) has ruined many peoples livelihoods!
Actually it wouldn't suprise me if someone topped him.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The allagations of the 'mole' were on there own not worth the breath used to speak them. However as the reporter pointed out they then set out to corrobarate them by her working in security. To a large extent the original allagations were proven by her direct evidence as shown on the admitadly poor quality filming.
Leaving aside the spotters guide and the sparsely furnished flat (although she was rather nice to look at) which perhaps are irrelevent, the original object was to show the lapses in security...that having been achived, it is more worrying that the attitude of the management at Man was so poor. Thier written answer was as I say pure bullsh**t.
TCXcadet
Do you know she lied? It wasn't made clear what her referrees said when asked. yes she said she used to work as an English teacher, they did not say it was not true, she may have done so.
No jurnos do not have the right to lie, however to prosecute it would have to be in the public interest. Which public interest is served to a greater extent? Exposing a big hole in security, or taking someone to court the end result is unlightly to be a conviction and even if it does will only be a small fine.
There was more than fiddling numbers involved, the broken xray machine for instance, the lack of staff search, the fact that she could get a video camera airside without it being found. The claim that security patrols were carried out when they could not have been for, the list goes on.....
My recollection was they did inform the DfT after they finsished filming. I can see why they didn't before, note the comments about how obvious the DfT inspectors were.
Leaving aside the spotters guide and the sparsely furnished flat (although she was rather nice to look at) which perhaps are irrelevent, the original object was to show the lapses in security...that having been achived, it is more worrying that the attitude of the management at Man was so poor. Thier written answer was as I say pure bullsh**t.
TCXcadet
Do you know she lied? It wasn't made clear what her referrees said when asked. yes she said she used to work as an English teacher, they did not say it was not true, she may have done so.
No jurnos do not have the right to lie, however to prosecute it would have to be in the public interest. Which public interest is served to a greater extent? Exposing a big hole in security, or taking someone to court the end result is unlightly to be a conviction and even if it does will only be a small fine.
There was more than fiddling numbers involved, the broken xray machine for instance, the lack of staff search, the fact that she could get a video camera airside without it being found. The claim that security patrols were carried out when they could not have been for, the list goes on.....
My recollection was they did inform the DfT after they finsished filming. I can see why they didn't before, note the comments about how obvious the DfT inspectors were.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: manchester uk
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last week I passed through T3 staff entrance several times with only a pound coin in my pocket and no other metal on me and the detector beeped every time, maybe they could swap the machines around. After all I've had my background checked twice
in the last twelve months and passed both times, more than can be said for the SLF, and I'm expected to act as unpaid security on the ramp If I see anything suspicious which is more than the security staff do and that is what they are there for!!
On a side note the reporter went airside at 04.30am and showed a BA 146 taxying...........please.........no BA traffic after 00.00 untill the JFK lands around 05.30am
in the last twelve months and passed both times, more than can be said for the SLF, and I'm expected to act as unpaid security on the ramp If I see anything suspicious which is more than the security staff do and that is what they are there for!!
On a side note the reporter went airside at 04.30am and showed a BA 146 taxying...........please.........no BA traffic after 00.00 untill the JFK lands around 05.30am
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: East Midlands of uk
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well myself I found it an interesting program or as interesting as an undercover investagative program is likely to be.
I fall on the side of shock and concern like many do and not the side of Bah humbug like some who post-those presumebly who work in those areas of the industry. If we think about it clearly it isnt acceptable to cut corners with security but like all businesses corners are cut. In many industries this may not have a big affect on the world at large-sadly this isnt the case in aviation as we know from past events over the last few years.
The program did it's job in that it raised security issues which should concern us-very much like watching undercover footage shown in the UK after a massive bad meat processing chicken plant was highlighted. It puts things into the public domain which people need to know about. None of us want to be on that plane when the terrorist pulls out his knife and goes crazy so we shouldnt attack the BBC for the program it produced-ok maybe it would be better if the reporter was Roger Cook from the Cook report (UK bods will know who I mean) but there you go.
One thing I ponder is are these issues also to be found at Manchester airports other airports around the UK?
I fall on the side of shock and concern like many do and not the side of Bah humbug like some who post-those presumebly who work in those areas of the industry. If we think about it clearly it isnt acceptable to cut corners with security but like all businesses corners are cut. In many industries this may not have a big affect on the world at large-sadly this isnt the case in aviation as we know from past events over the last few years.
The program did it's job in that it raised security issues which should concern us-very much like watching undercover footage shown in the UK after a massive bad meat processing chicken plant was highlighted. It puts things into the public domain which people need to know about. None of us want to be on that plane when the terrorist pulls out his knife and goes crazy so we shouldnt attack the BBC for the program it produced-ok maybe it would be better if the reporter was Roger Cook from the Cook report (UK bods will know who I mean) but there you go.
One thing I ponder is are these issues also to be found at Manchester airports other airports around the UK?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 48
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My tuppence worth.
Yes, it wasn't the best programme in the world, our hero Michelle seems fresh from a media studies course!
However, it very definitely succeeded in making Manchester Airport look very stupid, both at management and staff level. At management level because, as the "mole" (who's words were obviously that of an actor Scottie Dog) stated, one of her referees was an investigative journalist, never mind that any robust search on her should have shown her up for who she really was. So that proved their background searches were useless.
The staff looked stupid as she was firing all these blatent "I'm a spy" questions at them, and fat, dumb and happy they all happily answered.
The cheated figures on search/patrol sheets etc. and non-working metal detectors, were just plain worrying.
Sad though that the programme did choose the "sensationalise" route, as stated, the clever use of camera lenses showing spotters practically alongside the runway was a good one! All the stuff about open gates were arguably irrelevant, as I am sure a terrorist with a SAM could find a million places to stand!
Be interesting to see how much "denial" goes on here though....
Yes, it wasn't the best programme in the world, our hero Michelle seems fresh from a media studies course!
However, it very definitely succeeded in making Manchester Airport look very stupid, both at management and staff level. At management level because, as the "mole" (who's words were obviously that of an actor Scottie Dog) stated, one of her referees was an investigative journalist, never mind that any robust search on her should have shown her up for who she really was. So that proved their background searches were useless.
The staff looked stupid as she was firing all these blatent "I'm a spy" questions at them, and fat, dumb and happy they all happily answered.
The cheated figures on search/patrol sheets etc. and non-working metal detectors, were just plain worrying.
Sad though that the programme did choose the "sensationalise" route, as stated, the clever use of camera lenses showing spotters practically alongside the runway was a good one! All the stuff about open gates were arguably irrelevant, as I am sure a terrorist with a SAM could find a million places to stand!
Be interesting to see how much "denial" goes on here though....
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I found interesting was the most effective security came from the trainer on the induction course.
Wasn't this the person who pushed buttons because he/she had doubts? Whats that saying about first impressions?
Shame his/her superiors let the side down.
If something doesn't seem right it's usually because it isn't!
Wasn't this the person who pushed buttons because he/she had doubts? Whats that saying about first impressions?
Shame his/her superiors let the side down.
If something doesn't seem right it's usually because it isn't!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: sector 001
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airport Security
Would not the acid test be for a further undercover investigation to take place, not necessarily at Manchester, to see whether the system is robust?
All UK airports should be put on notice from the DfT to ensure that the prescribed procedures are complied with at all times.
If you think security is expensive, wait until you have a major breach ......
All UK airports should be put on notice from the DfT to ensure that the prescribed procedures are complied with at all times.
If you think security is expensive, wait until you have a major breach ......
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Whereever they will send a pay cheque
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The old adage, Monkeys And Peanuts.
You cant blame someone for not being able to be in two places at once, as it seems "security" staff would have to be to do their job properly.
However it appeared that some security weaknesses were through staff just not be bothered to,for example, check bags.Peanuts again I suppose.
What I think is most worrying though is that a group of individuals, calling themselves Managers, has been allowed to so obviously degrade the overall security cover at MAN whilst giving themselves salary rises.
You cant blame someone for not being able to be in two places at once, as it seems "security" staff would have to be to do their job properly.
However it appeared that some security weaknesses were through staff just not be bothered to,for example, check bags.Peanuts again I suppose.
What I think is most worrying though is that a group of individuals, calling themselves Managers, has been allowed to so obviously degrade the overall security cover at MAN whilst giving themselves salary rises.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is generally a bad idea to let companies run this sort of thing as they will always have an interest in doing things as cheaply as possible. I feel this sort of thing should be run by the government employing reasonably paid employees. Since aviation is so important for this society I also think that the government should pick up the bill.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the quality of the program is irrelevant. I think the BBC were fairly responsible for journalists - who normally quite rightly get a slagging on this forum.
1) They didn't try to smuggle knives/bombs/guns etc through security like the tabloids
2) They obtained 1st hand accounts and evidence.
3) The evidence was handed to the airport BEFORE the program was aired.
The most worrying aspects were
1) Made up hold bag counts.
2) Failure to search enough random bags (3 out of 1000?!)
3) Security staff themselves going through security without passing through metal detectors (if aircrew have to, why not them? - They are supposed to).
4) A cleaner walking around the detector with a huge gashbag.
5) Using a broken metal detector
6) Transfer pax going through an unmanned security check point, sent back, then 1 bloke not watching screen as loading bags (screen not actually on)
However, the bit about the spotters corner was rubbish - they actually aide security.
Security at MAN has been visibily tightened recently, so thanks to the BBC.
1) They didn't try to smuggle knives/bombs/guns etc through security like the tabloids
2) They obtained 1st hand accounts and evidence.
3) The evidence was handed to the airport BEFORE the program was aired.
The most worrying aspects were
1) Made up hold bag counts.
2) Failure to search enough random bags (3 out of 1000?!)
3) Security staff themselves going through security without passing through metal detectors (if aircrew have to, why not them? - They are supposed to).
4) A cleaner walking around the detector with a huge gashbag.
5) Using a broken metal detector
6) Transfer pax going through an unmanned security check point, sent back, then 1 bloke not watching screen as loading bags (screen not actually on)
However, the bit about the spotters corner was rubbish - they actually aide security.
Security at MAN has been visibily tightened recently, so thanks to the BBC.
Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Northumberland, UK
Age: 61
Posts: 293
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watched the programme and came to roughly the same conclusion as Propellerhead, that as far as the journalist methodology goes it was at the responsible end of the spectrum. It all left an impression that if one pays for security at the lowest tender, one will get quality to match.
Sensationalism was easy to filter out although the point about access from outside the perimeter was a bit over the top. Unless we create an impractically wide sterile zone outside the perimeter fence there will always be good unobstructed views of the aircraft. Encourage the spotters I say ... by definition they are interested and observant.
Sensationalism was easy to filter out although the point about access from outside the perimeter was a bit over the top. Unless we create an impractically wide sterile zone outside the perimeter fence there will always be good unobstructed views of the aircraft. Encourage the spotters I say ... by definition they are interested and observant.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There have been a lot of complaints from professional pilots on this forum about the way that security at Manchester treats the pilots who are trusted with millions of pounds worth of aircraft and passengers lives. To see the way that they conduct security at the airport on this programme was truly shocking.
Yes it is a shame that the programme was not presented a bit better but the 'amatures' here are definately the security staff and security management at that airport, and they are really playing with fire!
Yes it is a shame that the programme was not presented a bit better but the 'amatures' here are definately the security staff and security management at that airport, and they are really playing with fire!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 39
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Went in to work at T2 to day and the queue was snaking all over the departure concourse. Clearly that is what happens when the security screeners are doing their job properly and checking people carefully. There was an evident increase in the quality of the searches being carried out, although the staff did seem a little, shall we say, demoralised
.
Regards
Alex
.Regards
Alex
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: timbucthree
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oh my gawd, how on earth are we all still here
Bloody mickey mouse security, hang on that's an insult to disney they would do it much better.
That is how we looked, yes I am a security officer at the SCAREPORT as it should be now known, but that's an old one. No excuses just shame to be associated with it all, how are we to be ever taken seriously again, just waiting for the comments from every man and his butty box............
Just one point though the people who looked as though they were avoiding going through the archway, would of already been screened and would of just been forward of the archway to pass a message on, or to deal with a query. that also applies to the cleaner the rubbish she had collected would of been airside rubbish, so errrrrr expertly screened previously, no excuses but got to try and salvage something, from this sorry shower of (the proverbial)
On a lighter note Jacko's patch should have it's own agent and equity card!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
crimson with embarrassment
That is how we looked, yes I am a security officer at the SCAREPORT as it should be now known, but that's an old one. No excuses just shame to be associated with it all, how are we to be ever taken seriously again, just waiting for the comments from every man and his butty box............
Just one point though the people who looked as though they were avoiding going through the archway, would of already been screened and would of just been forward of the archway to pass a message on, or to deal with a query. that also applies to the cleaner the rubbish she had collected would of been airside rubbish, so errrrrr expertly screened previously, no excuses but got to try and salvage something, from this sorry shower of (the proverbial)
On a lighter note Jacko's patch should have it's own agent and equity card!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
crimson with embarrassment