Frustrated (?) pilots and security screening
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Court case starts
After a six month gap I restart this thread as the court case against the 8 x accused has just started
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7328892.stm
There's been lots of discussion so far on this thread about the ifs and buts of how they might have assembled the device. The BBC article above sheds some light on this.
Its quite strange to see the faces of those who are accused (innocent until proven guilty) as they are potentially those responsible for all our misery at airports re liquids over the last 2 years and presumably for ever more.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7328892.stm
There's been lots of discussion so far on this thread about the ifs and buts of how they might have assembled the device. The BBC article above sheds some light on this.
Its quite strange to see the faces of those who are accused (innocent until proven guilty) as they are potentially those responsible for all our misery at airports re liquids over the last 2 years and presumably for ever more.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't it somewhere along the lines of 80% of all airplane disasters are caused by pilots? That's exponentially higher than those caused by terrorists...
All this fuss about keeping terrorists off aircraft when the real focus should be on getting the pilot out of the cockpit...
my two cents
expecting incoming....
All this fuss about keeping terrorists off aircraft when the real focus should be on getting the pilot out of the cockpit...
my two cents
expecting incoming....
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sleeping
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Things are getting ridiculous down here in Oz..
Getting screened at a lovely airport in QLD, was pulled over and bag searched. When the lovely man pulled out an item and said "aha...found it"
What he had found was a broken arm off my sunglasses - such a weapon.
I put up a massive stink, he wanted to confiscate it so when I politely told him that would mean my whole pair of sunglasses would be unserviceable he pointed out to me that I might need to get a new pair.
Then things got rather interesting......told him Id be right back with the crash axe to demolish the broken arm so he doesnt collect broken sunglass arms to build a pair of his own..
I was "randomly" bomb searched next time I went through...in uniform
Absolutely and utterly ridiculous
*patiently waiting for the day a pilot breaks his sunnies to take over the jet*
Getting screened at a lovely airport in QLD, was pulled over and bag searched. When the lovely man pulled out an item and said "aha...found it"
What he had found was a broken arm off my sunglasses - such a weapon.
I put up a massive stink, he wanted to confiscate it so when I politely told him that would mean my whole pair of sunglasses would be unserviceable he pointed out to me that I might need to get a new pair.
Then things got rather interesting......told him Id be right back with the crash axe to demolish the broken arm so he doesnt collect broken sunglass arms to build a pair of his own..
I was "randomly" bomb searched next time I went through...in uniform
Absolutely and utterly ridiculous
*patiently waiting for the day a pilot breaks his sunnies to take over the jet*
Guest
Posts: n/a
clearfinalsno1
There's been lots of discussion so far on this thread about the ifs and buts of how they might have assembled the device. The BBC article above sheds some light on this.
There's been lots of discussion so far on this thread about the ifs and buts of how they might have assembled the device. The BBC article above sheds some light on this.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: manchester
Age: 40
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What really pisses me off about the airport security is that the staff probably don't know what they are looking for - rather like the scene in airplane where the old lady walks through the metal detector and gets arrested and the guy with the Ak47 walks through. I think the policy of searching everybody means that as 99.99999% of passengers are innocent they probably not even expecting a suspicious person. If you have ever experienced Israeli security, then you'll realise what true security is. The irony is however, that the staff are highly trained specialists and know what they are looking for, and yet even in a country where you are checked before going into buildings everywhere, it really doesn't bother you because the people are generally polite and there have been genuine attempts of suicide bombers being stopped by them. I've flown El Al for years and even before all this water bottle crap they never bothered to do it, even in Israel! The had faith in their staff who would wander around the airports and might come and strike up a conversation with you, but they knew what they were doing. Here, I was asked by a security guard what the piece of metal was on my neck, I told him it was a star of david to which he replied you should take it off next time you come through. It's all gone mad really, when I get through everytime with a zippo lighter in my bag yet my water is a risk!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Age: 32
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The security is not for security- it is for Joe Public to feel like the 'authorities' are doing something. Understand this, and now try and think of a better solution to persuading ignorant fools that they are safe?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whats with the plastic bags though? I understand that they limit the amountof 100ml containers you can take through but security at my base wont let any containers through unless in a plastic bag.
I have one 100ml container of friut juice concentrate to alleviate the boredom of plain water on the flight. When I take it through inside a plastic bag its cute & funny if it's not in the bag its a very dangerous item. Its ONE container you can maybe guess it doesn't overfill a 1 litre bag on its own. Good grief etc.
I have one 100ml container of friut juice concentrate to alleviate the boredom of plain water on the flight. When I take it through inside a plastic bag its cute & funny if it's not in the bag its a very dangerous item. Its ONE container you can maybe guess it doesn't overfill a 1 litre bag on its own. Good grief etc.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Where the boss is
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What gets on my nerves is the fact that we as pilots always have to be almost naked when going through security, questions being asked about why we have a tooth paste more than 100 ml in our carry on bag (which was on the bulk but as a crew change somewhere occured you now have it on your bag!) and at the same time one collegue of those screener pass without problem beside, bell running, saying "hello guys, have a good day" and going further to his/her gate.It should be either everyone really has the same checks or when you have a security pass you don't have to go through these checks anymore period, if the authorities would be screening a bit better people wanting to work at an airport no such bull**** would happen!
So the accused rounded up some hydrogen peroxide (at what concentration, pray tell) and some Tang.
Seriously if any good bang could be accomplished with this stuff, there'd be quite the horde of 12 year old boys missing fingers and eyes
Not to say that the accused and the Crown don't share the same fantasies about the easy manufacture of explosives in the lav sink
Legally speaking there may be grounds for conspiracy by means of a unworkable mechanism if the defendants truly believed it would work
Seriously if any good bang could be accomplished with this stuff, there'd be quite the horde of 12 year old boys missing fingers and eyes
Not to say that the accused and the Crown don't share the same fantasies about the easy manufacture of explosives in the lav sink
Legally speaking there may be grounds for conspiracy by means of a unworkable mechanism if the defendants truly believed it would work
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pasoundman
The Jury were shown a video yesterday of a device made from the substances mentioned, and the effects were discribed as substantial.
So either, the people that put the demo together to be videoed for the court lied. In which case, I'm sure the defence will put that point, and will probably have done thier own tests.
or
That the Crown case that the effects would have been sufficent to bring down an arircraft are correct, in which case, the restriction on liquids have some validity.
Time will tell.
The Jury were shown a video yesterday of a device made from the substances mentioned, and the effects were discribed as substantial.
So either, the people that put the demo together to be videoed for the court lied. In which case, I'm sure the defence will put that point, and will probably have done thier own tests.
or
That the Crown case that the effects would have been sufficent to bring down an arircraft are correct, in which case, the restriction on liquids have some validity.
Time will tell.
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: 5530N
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
chap in heathrow gave the tackle a good rummage the other day in crew secuirty.....i smiled with a crooked glare......he knew if he did that to me on a normal patch he'd have been sent into the next life....
Whenever an airplane crashes, there are pilots on board.
However, there have been only a handful of cases in which there were terrorists involved in mishaps.
I therefore suggest to remove all pilots from all airplanes, as they are statistically more likely to be somehow involved in air disasters.
However, there have been only a handful of cases in which there were terrorists involved in mishaps.
I therefore suggest to remove all pilots from all airplanes, as they are statistically more likely to be somehow involved in air disasters.
)
Guest
Posts: n/a
The LIES about 'liquid explosives'
bjcc
pasoundman,
The Jury were shown a video yesterday of a device made from the substances mentioned, and the effects were discribed as substantial.
pasoundman,
The Jury were shown a video yesterday of a device made from the substances mentioned, and the effects were discribed as substantial.
In short, there's no way you can prepare such a substance on board an airliner.
So either, the people that put the demo together to be videoed for the court lied. In which case, I'm sure the defence will put that point, and will probably have done thier own tests.
In any case, the prosecution have already LIED about the role of the fizzy drink 'Tang'. A sugary solution DOES NOT affect the explosiveness of TATP in ANY WAY. A decent schoolkid's knowledge of chemistry should tell you that much. In fact, being a solution in water it would REDUCE any explosive effect, possibly to NIL
or That the Crown case that the effects would have been sufficent to bring down an arircraft are correct, in which case, the restriction on liquids have some validity.
Time will tell.
Time will tell.
In particular, the claim that a 'sugary liquid' meaning a fizzy drink will enhance the explosive effect is plain BERSERK ! TATP is not an oxidiser based explosive so any amount of sugar is wholly IRRELEVANT !
The Crown Prosecution is as mad as BA's management. I've a mind to write to the High Court to advice they're being told OUTRIGHT LIES !
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pasoundman
Oh dear, you are bitter....Still, we'll see what happens. I mean if you can work out it's a Goverment/Police/CPS/MOD/MI5/Croydon Boy Scouts stitch up, then even an 'incompetent' defence Barrister will point it all out, and have no difficulty in distroying the crown case. Although your input could be just what they need.
I've not seen nor heard yet how the demo device was made. Nor the condition of any device which was found assembled at the time of arrests, or the conditions in which the devices were, or were going to be, assembled. I presume you have insider knowladge of that.
Please do write to the court, although it may be quicker to write to Woolwich Crown Court, where the case is being heard, rather than the High Court.
Oh dear, you are bitter....Still, we'll see what happens. I mean if you can work out it's a Goverment/Police/CPS/MOD/MI5/Croydon Boy Scouts stitch up, then even an 'incompetent' defence Barrister will point it all out, and have no difficulty in distroying the crown case. Although your input could be just what they need.
I've not seen nor heard yet how the demo device was made. Nor the condition of any device which was found assembled at the time of arrests, or the conditions in which the devices were, or were going to be, assembled. I presume you have insider knowladge of that.
Please do write to the court, although it may be quicker to write to Woolwich Crown Court, where the case is being heard, rather than the High Court.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nairn, Highland
Age: 85
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One airport I used was staffed by a security chap who seemingly NEVER washed and had the most appalling Body Odour.
Landing in a 35 knot gusty cross wind was a minor challenge compared to being frisked by that guy.
Jack
Landing in a 35 knot gusty cross wind was a minor challenge compared to being frisked by that guy.
Jack
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Anglesey
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc, stop being a thicko!
Even those of us with limited knowledge of the law can differentiate between the conspiracy to commit acts of terror and the likelihood of those accused of the plot of actually achieving their aim of producing a viable explosive device with enough power to destroy an a/c.
Yes, the accused are a bunch of brainwashed idiots with a 7th century attitude. However, the bullcrap being bandied about by the government and DfT about the likelyhood of them being able to produce a viable explosive from over the counter peroxide and a sugary drink mix is little more than knee jerk reaction and an attempt to save face. Once they'd hyped up the likelihood of there being a viable explosive they couldn't back down as they'd already caused millions of pound worth of damage to the industry.
There are two arguments or discussions going on here. One is the conspiracy by the accused to cause massive destruction and the other is could they have created a suitable explosive mixture that was viable. Too much crap to deal with now for pax and flight crew thanks to the duffers who opened their mouths immediately after the arrests and the subsequent squealing panic from the DfT staffers who put the liquids ban into force.
Those responsible for the new, knee jerk rules are just as guilty as the 8 accused of the conspiracy for the havoc, chaos and subsequent misery that they have inflicted on those of us who have to work on aircraft. Direct your venom, spittle and anger at them in equal proportions.
Even those of us with limited knowledge of the law can differentiate between the conspiracy to commit acts of terror and the likelihood of those accused of the plot of actually achieving their aim of producing a viable explosive device with enough power to destroy an a/c.
Yes, the accused are a bunch of brainwashed idiots with a 7th century attitude. However, the bullcrap being bandied about by the government and DfT about the likelyhood of them being able to produce a viable explosive from over the counter peroxide and a sugary drink mix is little more than knee jerk reaction and an attempt to save face. Once they'd hyped up the likelihood of there being a viable explosive they couldn't back down as they'd already caused millions of pound worth of damage to the industry.
There are two arguments or discussions going on here. One is the conspiracy by the accused to cause massive destruction and the other is could they have created a suitable explosive mixture that was viable. Too much crap to deal with now for pax and flight crew thanks to the duffers who opened their mouths immediately after the arrests and the subsequent squealing panic from the DfT staffers who put the liquids ban into force.
Those responsible for the new, knee jerk rules are just as guilty as the 8 accused of the conspiracy for the havoc, chaos and subsequent misery that they have inflicted on those of us who have to work on aircraft. Direct your venom, spittle and anger at them in equal proportions.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hate the current situation. HOWEVER there can be few people who face with the "We're not sure but we think it's possible" answers on day one wouldn't have banned liquids. It would be a bloody brave man that said no, in the full knowledge that hundreds might die. I see where we are, I see why we're here, there's hope for some gentle back tracking in the future. But at the time, it would have been a terryfying decision for the DfT. Hindsight is 20 / 20 .
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mumbo jumbo
As I have said, if there was, as you and pasoundman seem to think, no ability to commit the offence, then it will no doubt be brought as part of the defence. The full case hasn't been made to the Court yet, so assuming that something isn't possible, when you don't know all of the circumstances is a bit premature.
If you are right, and it was nothing more than a knee jerk response, then the restrictions could have been lifted long ago, without any loss of face. They have not, would that be because someone wants to continue to cause damage to the industry? Isn't that stretching credability a bit far? As with many things in life, someone knows more than you, and unless you have access to everything that the Police and the Sec Service are sat on, again, assuming that you are right is a dangerous proposition.
How much damage is being caused in reality? Not much from what I can see, Heathrow is as congested as it was before these restrictions, a good indication that it isn't causing as much damage as some on here suggest. I've not looked for pax numbers before and after the restrictions were imposed, it would be interesting to see if they are down really down, or not.
As I have said, if there was, as you and pasoundman seem to think, no ability to commit the offence, then it will no doubt be brought as part of the defence. The full case hasn't been made to the Court yet, so assuming that something isn't possible, when you don't know all of the circumstances is a bit premature.
If you are right, and it was nothing more than a knee jerk response, then the restrictions could have been lifted long ago, without any loss of face. They have not, would that be because someone wants to continue to cause damage to the industry? Isn't that stretching credability a bit far? As with many things in life, someone knows more than you, and unless you have access to everything that the Police and the Sec Service are sat on, again, assuming that you are right is a dangerous proposition.
How much damage is being caused in reality? Not much from what I can see, Heathrow is as congested as it was before these restrictions, a good indication that it isn't causing as much damage as some on here suggest. I've not looked for pax numbers before and after the restrictions were imposed, it would be interesting to see if they are down really down, or not.