Security at NY
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess if you really wanted to address this issue the aircraft would have to be taken to the tools rather than the tools to the aircraft. With appropriate searches on it's return obviously. All possible but somewhat costly and time consuming.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DuncanF
OK, so why don't we take it one step further. Why are airport police allowed to 'roam' land/airside without going through the same procedure? They can carry firearms airside! It comes down to trust. At some point you HAVE to trust the various background checks etc that have been done. Who is to say that said policeman would not have his family kidnapped and the same threats made as to you allude to above?
Sorry for pointing out the bleeding obvious.
PP
As soon as you have people allowed airside without a search then you also have people who could be coerced (someone could kidnap your family) into carrying naughty things through to hand to the bad guys.
Sorry for pointing out the bleeding obvious.
PP
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: U.S. East Cost and Europe (travelling too much, and at home in both)
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, I am SLF, but as such...
Agree 100%, therefore everybody needs to be searched
Yes, but I think they should be searched for additional items. What about explosives? Certainly we can have different policies for pax, aircrew, mechanics, police, yesno?
Nothing, you are correct. But as above, I can make sure that all s/he has is the gun, not explosives. And maybe an opportunity to alert somebody quietly to his/her calamity.
I understand the sentiment here - at some point you have to trust. But you can and should make sure.
In my mind, the issue here is not the fact that flight crew has to be searched. The issue is inadequate procedures at some airports. Some screeners seem to get a kick out of searching air crew and bossing them around (seen that myself).
Personally, I see no problem with having a separate "crew/personal checkpoint", as some airports already have. Staff it with folks who can actually see whether an ID tag is fake or acurate. Staff it with the same folks ever time so they recognize people. Make sure aircrew/mechanics/etc can give feedback on behavior to a supervisor. This is not that much of additional expense per pax, would make your life easier, and everybody is happy.
people who could be coerced (someone could kidnap your family) into carrying naughty things through to hand to the bad guys
Why are airport police allowed to 'roam' land/airside without going through the same procedure? They can carry firearms airside!
Who is to say that said policeman would not have his family kidnapped and the same threats made as to you allude to above
I understand the sentiment here - at some point you have to trust. But you can and should make sure.
In my mind, the issue here is not the fact that flight crew has to be searched. The issue is inadequate procedures at some airports. Some screeners seem to get a kick out of searching air crew and bossing them around (seen that myself).
Personally, I see no problem with having a separate "crew/personal checkpoint", as some airports already have. Staff it with folks who can actually see whether an ID tag is fake or acurate. Staff it with the same folks ever time so they recognize people. Make sure aircrew/mechanics/etc can give feedback on behavior to a supervisor. This is not that much of additional expense per pax, would make your life easier, and everybody is happy.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
security
Guys, security is for your safety. Engineers sometimes do have to use sharp objects to to maintain A/C and sadly forget where they left them, but thats a different subject.
I have to remove my shoes each time I go through ORD and i wear a skirt and as for my shoes its obvious there is no room to hide any thing.
I have to remove my shoes each time I go through ORD and i wear a skirt and as for my shoes its obvious there is no room to hide any thing.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess if we said there is no point having security checks because engineers can bring pointy obects in, then we would all be say that it's rediculous that ANYONE can walk through security with a knife, even office staff working airside.
There has to be a certain 'do as much as practically possible' attitude to this. You're not going to plug all the wholes, but you're a fool for not trying.
Having said that, Dublin security is laughable sometimes. I once heard an engineer walked through with a leatherman and security asked him what it was. He said "a leatherman, you know, a knife and pliers and all that in one tool!" the security man just said "thats ok, now take your shoes off and put them through the scanner". The engineer replied "Why? What are you hoping to find, a knife?"
I think it's hilarious but it does show you that security can loose focus on what they are trying to achieve. But hey, hats off, they are aiming to achieve the impossible.
There has to be a certain 'do as much as practically possible' attitude to this. You're not going to plug all the wholes, but you're a fool for not trying.
Having said that, Dublin security is laughable sometimes. I once heard an engineer walked through with a leatherman and security asked him what it was. He said "a leatherman, you know, a knife and pliers and all that in one tool!" the security man just said "thats ok, now take your shoes off and put them through the scanner". The engineer replied "Why? What are you hoping to find, a knife?"
I think it's hilarious but it does show you that security can loose focus on what they are trying to achieve. But hey, hats off, they are aiming to achieve the impossible.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The politicians certainly like to be seen to be 'doing something', but the millions being spent on airport security screening are, for the most part, wasted.
I have handled ceramic knives and Kevlar knives. They are undetectable by the airport metal detectors. At terminal 4 Heathrow they are very proud of their machine which will look through clothing and see solid objects of a non-metallic nature. However, the machine cannot look beyond skin. I have handled a knife shaped to be inserted into a bodily orifice which the terminal 4 machine will not pick up.
Whatever the security procedures are designed to do, they will not stop a terrorist getting a bladed weapon on to an aircraft. Getting excited about leathermen is futile.
Neither do current procedures have any chance of stopping a bomber. As any special forces man will tell you, C4 military explosive and its stablemate semtex, can be disguised from machine sniffers by the simple expedient of wrapping the stuff in clingfilm. Care needs to be taken in the wrapping, in that the person who places the C4 should not be the wrapper. C4 in a cigar tube inserted into an orifice would never be detected at Heathrow or anywhere else. You have a clock radio in your bag which is set up to take an explosive charge. Would any of our airport security people recognise its purpose. No chance. All you need now is a little help from Hamas, who have been shown by the Iranians how to make a sophisticated shaped charge and you have the means of taking down the flight deck door.
Before I am accused of giving ideas to terrorists, may I remind you that the terrorists devote themselves daily to working out how to achieve their next atrocity. We spend 5 minutes in the cruise coming up with ideas. How many ideas do you think the dedicated terrorists come up with.
If you gave 6 students from an Engineering faculty 6 months to come up with credible ideas for penetrating security, does anyone doubt that they would come up with a multitude of successful methods.
So lets get real on security. It is ineffective at deterring the terrorist although it is very effective at disarming law-abiding citizens.
The only means we have of detecting C4 in clingfilm is by the use of sniffer dogs. They are more sensitive than machines. We could save a fortune by exchanging the present security apparatus for dogs. Even then the dogs are not infallible but they are the best we have.
Next, we need to get it into our heads that the aircraft cabin can be penetrated at will by blade carrying terrorists, even if they have passed through the security screen, so the re-inforced flight deck door is essential. If that is blown by a low yield shaped charge, then the pilots must be armed and trained to defend the flightdeck. By that I do not mean that they should enter the cabin; merely defend the flightdeck. If we do not resolve to defend the flightdeck, we invite another 9/11
I have handled ceramic knives and Kevlar knives. They are undetectable by the airport metal detectors. At terminal 4 Heathrow they are very proud of their machine which will look through clothing and see solid objects of a non-metallic nature. However, the machine cannot look beyond skin. I have handled a knife shaped to be inserted into a bodily orifice which the terminal 4 machine will not pick up.
Whatever the security procedures are designed to do, they will not stop a terrorist getting a bladed weapon on to an aircraft. Getting excited about leathermen is futile.
Neither do current procedures have any chance of stopping a bomber. As any special forces man will tell you, C4 military explosive and its stablemate semtex, can be disguised from machine sniffers by the simple expedient of wrapping the stuff in clingfilm. Care needs to be taken in the wrapping, in that the person who places the C4 should not be the wrapper. C4 in a cigar tube inserted into an orifice would never be detected at Heathrow or anywhere else. You have a clock radio in your bag which is set up to take an explosive charge. Would any of our airport security people recognise its purpose. No chance. All you need now is a little help from Hamas, who have been shown by the Iranians how to make a sophisticated shaped charge and you have the means of taking down the flight deck door.
Before I am accused of giving ideas to terrorists, may I remind you that the terrorists devote themselves daily to working out how to achieve their next atrocity. We spend 5 minutes in the cruise coming up with ideas. How many ideas do you think the dedicated terrorists come up with.
If you gave 6 students from an Engineering faculty 6 months to come up with credible ideas for penetrating security, does anyone doubt that they would come up with a multitude of successful methods.
So lets get real on security. It is ineffective at deterring the terrorist although it is very effective at disarming law-abiding citizens.
The only means we have of detecting C4 in clingfilm is by the use of sniffer dogs. They are more sensitive than machines. We could save a fortune by exchanging the present security apparatus for dogs. Even then the dogs are not infallible but they are the best we have.
Next, we need to get it into our heads that the aircraft cabin can be penetrated at will by blade carrying terrorists, even if they have passed through the security screen, so the re-inforced flight deck door is essential. If that is blown by a low yield shaped charge, then the pilots must be armed and trained to defend the flightdeck. By that I do not mean that they should enter the cabin; merely defend the flightdeck. If we do not resolve to defend the flightdeck, we invite another 9/11
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Near EGKK
Age: 51
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies for causing even more thread creep than we are suffering already, as this didn't happen anywhere near NY.
Earlier this month I flew (only as pax ... sensibly, nobody lets me fly anything that big) PSP-SFO and then SFO-LHR. On the first occasion at Palm Springs the security checker said to me "I recommend you remove your shoes" whilst I was putting laptops in seperate boxes and removing jackets etc. When I walked through the scanner, with shoes still attached to feet saying "Its OK, there isn't really any metal in them; they don't set it off" an agitated security bod once again "Recommended that I removed my shoes" and told me to go back. Once said shoes had been removed, I could proceed.
Now when someone makes a recommendation to me, I will - of course - listen to it politely and weigh up the various merits of their recommendation and decide if I accept it. Apparently, however, what this chap actually meant was "Sir, could you please remove your shoes and put them through the scanner with everything else, otherwise you aren't going any further through this airport or worse"; and he was happy once I did so.
I asked the security people at SFO about this when, once again, the removal of my footware was recommended to me. The polite lady there told me that they were not allowed to ask people to remove their shoes. I explained my last experience with PSP security, and pointed out that they wouldn't let you through unless you did, so why not just ask for what you want? Both of us just nodded at the absurdity of it as I went through the detector.
So please, anyone from the US side of the atlantic - which damned political correctness means that the security people don't even ask us what they want us to do any more? Thus increasing frustration at something that we all find a irritation at best and pointless at worst (as others have already said - there are ways that airport security could be circumvented by the determined).
A somewhat puzzled Paul.
Earlier this month I flew (only as pax ... sensibly, nobody lets me fly anything that big) PSP-SFO and then SFO-LHR. On the first occasion at Palm Springs the security checker said to me "I recommend you remove your shoes" whilst I was putting laptops in seperate boxes and removing jackets etc. When I walked through the scanner, with shoes still attached to feet saying "Its OK, there isn't really any metal in them; they don't set it off" an agitated security bod once again "Recommended that I removed my shoes" and told me to go back. Once said shoes had been removed, I could proceed.
Now when someone makes a recommendation to me, I will - of course - listen to it politely and weigh up the various merits of their recommendation and decide if I accept it. Apparently, however, what this chap actually meant was "Sir, could you please remove your shoes and put them through the scanner with everything else, otherwise you aren't going any further through this airport or worse"; and he was happy once I did so.
I asked the security people at SFO about this when, once again, the removal of my footware was recommended to me. The polite lady there told me that they were not allowed to ask people to remove their shoes. I explained my last experience with PSP security, and pointed out that they wouldn't let you through unless you did, so why not just ask for what you want? Both of us just nodded at the absurdity of it as I went through the detector.
So please, anyone from the US side of the atlantic - which damned political correctness means that the security people don't even ask us what they want us to do any more? Thus increasing frustration at something that we all find a irritation at best and pointless at worst (as others have already said - there are ways that airport security could be circumvented by the determined).
A somewhat puzzled Paul.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: About 1 mile from WOD ndb
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
grand slam has got it almost 100% right. The terrorist will find a new way.
While I appreciate that this is an aviation forum, don't ignore the bigger picture. The terrorists will find some completely different vulnerability to attack. Close off aviation completely -- if such a thing were possible -- and they'll blow up the tube or buses. Oops, sorry, that's been done. And we can't actually do a damned thing about a possible repetition, however the politicians and their "expert advisors" huff and puff.
Pick another target: how about a few major hotels in London? That would do the trick.
My point is that we fixate on the least likely or the flawed: like flight deck doors. We'd been through all that in the past and relaxed it because the threat changed. Come 9/11, and we pretend that we can eliminate the threat with armoured doors (again). Which are opened by CC to take the flight crew coffee and meals.
You have to keep the bandits off the planes, it's already too late when they're aboard.
I could go on, but I'd bore you to no effect.
While I appreciate that this is an aviation forum, don't ignore the bigger picture. The terrorists will find some completely different vulnerability to attack. Close off aviation completely -- if such a thing were possible -- and they'll blow up the tube or buses. Oops, sorry, that's been done. And we can't actually do a damned thing about a possible repetition, however the politicians and their "expert advisors" huff and puff.
Pick another target: how about a few major hotels in London? That would do the trick.
My point is that we fixate on the least likely or the flawed: like flight deck doors. We'd been through all that in the past and relaxed it because the threat changed. Come 9/11, and we pretend that we can eliminate the threat with armoured doors (again). Which are opened by CC to take the flight crew coffee and meals.
You have to keep the bandits off the planes, it's already too late when they're aboard.
I could go on, but I'd bore you to no effect.
