the ultimate security idiocy
Guest
Posts: n/a
the ultimate security idiocy
Flying from Baltimore the other day I was told an armed secret service officer would be on the flight. He eventually arrived - somewhat upset.. .This fellow cleared the metal detector by presenting his papers and identification - he was carrying a pistol. Then he was told to remove his overcoat, which he did. Then the screener tried to get him to remove his jacket which was the only thing preventing his concealed weapon becoming a highly visible weapon! The screeners then, in public view, searched his suitcase pulling out his bullet proof vest for the public to see. As you can imagine, a bullet proof vest is not the easiest thing to stow in a carry-on suitcase. As the agent tried to re-organise his suitcase the screener growled at him "don't touch that suitcase". . .The implications of this idiocy are frightening. What would have happened if the half-somnolent National Guard soldiers with rifles became aware that a passenger, who was being screened, was carrying a firearm? It's possible they would have assumed this was an attempt to smuggle a firearm through security and all hell would break loose.The secret service is supposed to be the apex of national security yet this agent was given the works by a screener that the US government was calling underqualified just four months ago. The local airport law enforcment walks through security with no checks but a GENUINE, VERIFIED, BADGE AND GUN CARRYING SECRET SERVICE AGENT IS INSPECTED.
Visions of James Bond (00 rating) problem with security screener goes away.. .To give the agent a lot of credit he did unload his complaints on me but he appears to have handled the ridiculous affair in security with admirable coolness unlike the fellow who got involved with AA.
Visions of James Bond (00 rating) problem with security screener goes away.. .To give the agent a lot of credit he did unload his complaints on me but he appears to have handled the ridiculous affair in security with admirable coolness unlike the fellow who got involved with AA.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Horsham
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is they are so busy trying to LOOK as though they have security that they fail to see that they hav'nt actually made things any safer. I spent over 5 years in counter you-know-what, and I do not feel any safer with someone fiddling through my belongings when all I see is someone who does not know what they are looking for. Gatwick is wide open. How much thought have they put into security......... not a lot it would seem.
[ 08 February 2002: Message edited by: PPRuNe Towers ]</p>
[ 08 February 2002: Message edited by: PPRuNe Towers ]</p>
Same here at MAN. Only in an attempt to improve the situation, management (hah!) is trying to cut security staff numbers and pay. The bad guys must be laughing their socks off and who would blame them.
Doc C.
Doc C.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really do not see the point of the National Guard soldiers being posted at security checkpoints whatsoever.
If someone there is to be armed (hopefully not the screeners - ever) then a rifle is surely the worst instrument for this job. Not only is it more bulky than a pistol, but it is harder to aim in that small enclosed environment, when any situation necessitating its need would be to take one person down and not a whole group of bystanders themselves clearing security. Are they expecting to spray bullets in the area? I surely hope not.
A show of force may be a good thing in the aftermath - now over I hope you would agree - and now is simply an unnecessary cost and excessive risk. Increasing normal police presence would surely be more effective, and provide more officers for other uses as well.
This incident described above simply reinforces the need for bonafide airline personnel and the related airside personnel to all cary a single ID card for all airports of one country such that they are easily identifiable, and a separate screening area away from passengers such that they can also go through unnoticed were credentials to be verified - also discouraging perhaps those who would be potential imposters.
Anyone got that 'priceless' post again with the FAA security guards?
If someone there is to be armed (hopefully not the screeners - ever) then a rifle is surely the worst instrument for this job. Not only is it more bulky than a pistol, but it is harder to aim in that small enclosed environment, when any situation necessitating its need would be to take one person down and not a whole group of bystanders themselves clearing security. Are they expecting to spray bullets in the area? I surely hope not.
A show of force may be a good thing in the aftermath - now over I hope you would agree - and now is simply an unnecessary cost and excessive risk. Increasing normal police presence would surely be more effective, and provide more officers for other uses as well.
This incident described above simply reinforces the need for bonafide airline personnel and the related airside personnel to all cary a single ID card for all airports of one country such that they are easily identifiable, and a separate screening area away from passengers such that they can also go through unnoticed were credentials to be verified - also discouraging perhaps those who would be potential imposters.
Anyone got that 'priceless' post again with the FAA security guards?
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm ! It's worrying that whenever DTLR ( or whatever they call themselves these days ) are at UK airports to check procedures, the queues at security are suddenly trebled resulting in mega-delays for the pax. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
So if security are doing everything correctly and by-the-book, when DTLR are there - just what are they doing at other times when there aren't the delays ??? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
[ 08 February 2002: Message edited by: ghost-rider ]</p>
So if security are doing everything correctly and by-the-book, when DTLR are there - just what are they doing at other times when there aren't the delays ??? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
[ 08 February 2002: Message edited by: ghost-rider ]</p>
Moderator
[quote]If someone there is to be armed (hopefully not the screeners - ever) then a rifle is surely the worst instrument for this job. Not only is it more bulky than a pistol, but it is harder to aim in that small enclosed environment, when any situation necessitating its need would be to take one person down and not a whole group of bystanders themselves clearing security. Are they expecting to spray bullets in the area? I surely hope not.
<hr></blockquote>
You are correct that any type of rifle projectile fired indoors (especially in a marble and tiled airport terminal) is one of the WORST choices from a tactical standpoint, but it is only a worry IF they have ammunition for said rifles! The Nat. Guard guys are nothing more than scarecrows to pacify the flying public, and as POSSIBLE deterrent. If they were actually there to be effective in countering a threat, they'd be more effective if they were NOT seen. Also, an MP-5 with frangible loads would be much more effective as well as reducing the chance of ricochet.
An M-16 is a baaaadddd LOOKING weapon! If you were trying to make security LOOK more effective, wouldn't you choose a few soldiers in camoflage and cool berets carrying M-16's where they are SEEN by the most people?
The entire issue is a farce.
<hr></blockquote>
You are correct that any type of rifle projectile fired indoors (especially in a marble and tiled airport terminal) is one of the WORST choices from a tactical standpoint, but it is only a worry IF they have ammunition for said rifles! The Nat. Guard guys are nothing more than scarecrows to pacify the flying public, and as POSSIBLE deterrent. If they were actually there to be effective in countering a threat, they'd be more effective if they were NOT seen. Also, an MP-5 with frangible loads would be much more effective as well as reducing the chance of ricochet.
An M-16 is a baaaadddd LOOKING weapon! If you were trying to make security LOOK more effective, wouldn't you choose a few soldiers in camoflage and cool berets carrying M-16's where they are SEEN by the most people?
The entire issue is a farce.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ft, Lauderdale,FL
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have heard that the m16's those Guard guys carry around the airport aren't even loaded. It's presumed that the mere presence of the soldiers will deter criminal activity, which is probably true for amatuer criminals but not for pro's.. .If you walk in to Ben Gurion at Telaviv you won't "see" a single armed individual but the place is loaded with highly trained security professionals armed to the teeth.. .How many more jets are we supposed to lose before the government gets serious about security?
Moderator
Raas,
That is a good question! I wonder if this UAL incident will end up with the removal of the axe from the aircraft, because a terrorist might be able to use it!
That is a good question! I wonder if this UAL incident will end up with the removal of the axe from the aircraft, because a terrorist might be able to use it!
