Frustrated (?) pilots and security screening
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: N. Europe
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point is that there are people out there who want to bring down a plane.
This thread, as you will notice if you read it, is about inappropriate measures taken. Measures which do not contribute to preventing those people from achieving their goals. Measures which are a significant nuisance at best, and at worst counterproductive to safety.
Your point was, in fact, not a point at all but merely a completely irrelevant restating of a fact already and obviously well known to all involved.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Herts
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qwertyplop…. Short of inviting you to visit me at my place of work, I don’t know how else to convince you that I don’t work in airport security.
I don’t know how many interventions have been made at security. If there are none, I would say that this security check is proving to be a success in closing that route for attack
Can I point out that deliberate misspelling my username makes you look childish. Thanks for doing that, it tells me about the personality of the person I'm talking to.
RVV500… I don’t think you have considered all the possible risks and methods of attack.
Ft…. I take it you want security checks on aircrew to be lightened.
Do you know what is the single most dangerous thing you can do in a security setup?
And.. " Your point was, in fact, not a point at all but merely a completely irrelevant restating of a fact already and obviously well known to all involved."
It may be well known, but few of you seem to be behaving as if you believe it.
I don’t know how many interventions have been made at security. If there are none, I would say that this security check is proving to be a success in closing that route for attack
Can I point out that deliberate misspelling my username makes you look childish. Thanks for doing that, it tells me about the personality of the person I'm talking to.
RVV500… I don’t think you have considered all the possible risks and methods of attack.
Ft…. I take it you want security checks on aircrew to be lightened.
Do you know what is the single most dangerous thing you can do in a security setup?
And.. " Your point was, in fact, not a point at all but merely a completely irrelevant restating of a fact already and obviously well known to all involved."
It may be well known, but few of you seem to be behaving as if you believe it.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: not a million miles from old BKK
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How are you getting on with setting fire to your shoe rsuggitt?
From one of rsuggitts previous posts
What's this 'we're trying to prevent'?
So if he's not 'one of them' then is he a politician after all? Qwertyplop, take him up on his offer to show you where he works, you might get a free lunch out of it. I hear that the trough at the Palace of Westminster is quite something
.
From one of rsuggitts previous posts
can I ask you to focus for a moment on what we're trying to prevent....
So if he's not 'one of them' then is he a politician after all? Qwertyplop, take him up on his offer to show you where he works, you might get a free lunch out of it. I hear that the trough at the Palace of Westminster is quite something
.
Last edited by Xeque; 15th Jul 2008 at 12:32.
Seems like the stuff was HMTD
NY Times reports that the trial testimony identified Hexamethylene Triperoxide Diamine as the "liquid explosive" -- it's really a powder.
You're looking at something like 10 hours to make the stuff -- then there's drying time in a cool, dark environment as sunlight and/or heat will set the stuff off.
So you could begin the synthesis in the lav as long as you can control the temperature below 0C during the mixing and precipitation phases -- remember 8 to 24 hours for the precipitation.
So why bother banning liquids when all you have to do is watch out for folks with icepacks
If you rush the filtering, washing and drying, you just might have a surprise by the time you reach customs at the other end
This is not something you can do unobserved in your seat and would take an hour or two in the lav followed by a sojourn in your seat with a large and conspicuous icepack.
How to Make "HMTD" Exposive
HMTD @ 3Dchem.com
The stuff was once used in blasting caps, i.e. a sub-gram quantity. Transporting larger quantities incurs the distinct chance of not reaching the destination.
You're looking at something like 10 hours to make the stuff -- then there's drying time in a cool, dark environment as sunlight and/or heat will set the stuff off.
So you could begin the synthesis in the lav as long as you can control the temperature below 0C during the mixing and precipitation phases -- remember 8 to 24 hours for the precipitation.
So why bother banning liquids when all you have to do is watch out for folks with icepacks
If you rush the filtering, washing and drying, you just might have a surprise by the time you reach customs at the other end
This is not something you can do unobserved in your seat and would take an hour or two in the lav followed by a sojourn in your seat with a large and conspicuous icepack.
How to Make "HMTD" Exposive
HMTD @ 3Dchem.com
The stuff was once used in blasting caps, i.e. a sub-gram quantity. Transporting larger quantities incurs the distinct chance of not reaching the destination.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 61
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"
RVV500… I don’t think you have considered all the possible risks and methods of attack. "
Yes, other possible methods, some being
Liquids and metal objects which can be purchased freely after security
The big axe which is in the cockpit
The cutlery which is in the plane
All the liquid bottles in the planehousand and other odds and end freely available in the plane
So what do you want to do? If a pilot or co-pilot want to to damage to an aircraft, you at security can do nothing about it, compre?
So it's time security goons stop acting like nitwits trying to confiscate nail cutters and water bottles from cockpit crew and learn to treat them with respect. They are far more qualified, have undergone much more rigorous training and have more discipline than the nuts at security. And they ensure that the plane and the 400 passengers take off safely and arrive safely at their destinations. They are playing in the same side as airport security, ensuring safety day in and day out.
RVV500… I don’t think you have considered all the possible risks and methods of attack. "
Yes, other possible methods, some being
Liquids and metal objects which can be purchased freely after security
The big axe which is in the cockpit
The cutlery which is in the plane
All the liquid bottles in the planehousand and other odds and end freely available in the plane
So what do you want to do? If a pilot or co-pilot want to to damage to an aircraft, you at security can do nothing about it, compre?
So it's time security goons stop acting like nitwits trying to confiscate nail cutters and water bottles from cockpit crew and learn to treat them with respect. They are far more qualified, have undergone much more rigorous training and have more discipline than the nuts at security. And they ensure that the plane and the 400 passengers take off safely and arrive safely at their destinations. They are playing in the same side as airport security, ensuring safety day in and day out.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: N. Europe
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take it you want security checks on aircrew to be lightened.
Do you know what is the single most dangerous thing you can do in a security setup?
Robbing flight crew of their water bottles before a seven hour flight is also a surefire way to reduce aviation safety.
Making sure flight crew members will be weary and pissed off before boarding the plane is also a good way of decreasing safety.
My bet is, however, that you are going to say that making exceptions is the single most dangerous thing. As has been explained many times in this thread, that's a load of bull...
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Herts
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"My bet is, however, that you are going to say that making exceptions is the single most dangerous thing. "
You're quite right. An exception creates a loophole or a weakness, and there's a chance someone will try to exploit it.
You're quite right. An exception creates a loophole or a weakness, and there's a chance someone will try to exploit it.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Herts
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"So if he's not 'one of them' then is he a politician after all? Qwertyplop, take him up on his offer to show you where he works, you might get a free lunch out of it. I hear that the trough at the Palace of Westminster is quite something "
OK, I'm willing to meet with one person providing he/she will donate £100 to my favourite charity when I demonstrate that I'm in neither of the two places you assume.
OK, I'm willing to meet with one person providing he/she will donate £100 to my favourite charity when I demonstrate that I'm in neither of the two places you assume.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: N. Europe
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually letting passengers onboard the aircraft is also a loophole or weakness, and the one which will most likely be exploited.
If you want to make security next to absolute, get rid of the pax and their bags. But you will not. Why not? Because it is ridiculous. The cost is not proportional to the security gains.
And the same thing goes for many of the security hassles currently imposed on flight crews. They are outright ridiculous.
The point (and this is an actual point) is that security measures have to make sense. You can always make everything just a little bit safer, but at some point the cost of making it safer will outweigh the benefits.
You have to draw a line. This thread is about where the line is drawn. When it comes to security screening of flight crews, it is quite often drawn in the wrong place these days.
Now I will go sit in my couch and try to figure out why I even bother.
If you want to make security next to absolute, get rid of the pax and their bags. But you will not. Why not? Because it is ridiculous. The cost is not proportional to the security gains.
And the same thing goes for many of the security hassles currently imposed on flight crews. They are outright ridiculous.
The point (and this is an actual point) is that security measures have to make sense. You can always make everything just a little bit safer, but at some point the cost of making it safer will outweigh the benefits.
You have to draw a line. This thread is about where the line is drawn. When it comes to security screening of flight crews, it is quite often drawn in the wrong place these days.
Now I will go sit in my couch and try to figure out why I even bother.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's an interesting point about me spelling your name incorrectly rsuggit, I did not do it to annoy or belittle however. Please accept my apologies.
What was more interesting was that you failed to deal with the points I made.
When may I expect you to counter the points I made about the right educated people, with the right background and level of vetting and ongoing monitoring, with the right access to the pertinent intel, from the right crown service working in partnership with other crown services, doing the REAL job that security have no hope in a month of Sundays doing??
I believe that private security companies exist in this environment as a sop to the hysterical masses and that they do nothing more - the fact is they have no more chance of intervening and stopping something than they actually have of recognising something amiss in the first place for all of the aforementioned reasons. 'Need to know' old chap - and they don't need to know. They just need to stop 1 in 3 people with no rhyme or reason. Throw in the odd 'random' search simply because they can and Robert's your Dad's brother. It's a farce, we know it's a farce and if you are honest, you know it's a farce.
The fact that plots have been uncovered has NOTHING to do with a person earning the minimum wage, with respect to them, telling an 80 year old gentleman to take his shoes off and EVERYTHING to do with the professionalism of the crown security services in whatever form they take doing what they do overtly and covertly. That this happens is a CONSEQUENCE of this success. And this is the problem, inappropriate people being left with the minimum of supervision to make choices embedded within a lack of information and command & control. Sound familiar? It's the security operatives at every airport in the UK.
To suggest otherwise is a point from which you cannot argue a position with any credibility.
I'm sorry rsuggit but that's the reality of this issue.
What was more interesting was that you failed to deal with the points I made.
When may I expect you to counter the points I made about the right educated people, with the right background and level of vetting and ongoing monitoring, with the right access to the pertinent intel, from the right crown service working in partnership with other crown services, doing the REAL job that security have no hope in a month of Sundays doing??
I believe that private security companies exist in this environment as a sop to the hysterical masses and that they do nothing more - the fact is they have no more chance of intervening and stopping something than they actually have of recognising something amiss in the first place for all of the aforementioned reasons. 'Need to know' old chap - and they don't need to know. They just need to stop 1 in 3 people with no rhyme or reason. Throw in the odd 'random' search simply because they can and Robert's your Dad's brother. It's a farce, we know it's a farce and if you are honest, you know it's a farce.
The fact that plots have been uncovered has NOTHING to do with a person earning the minimum wage, with respect to them, telling an 80 year old gentleman to take his shoes off and EVERYTHING to do with the professionalism of the crown security services in whatever form they take doing what they do overtly and covertly. That this happens is a CONSEQUENCE of this success. And this is the problem, inappropriate people being left with the minimum of supervision to make choices embedded within a lack of information and command & control. Sound familiar? It's the security operatives at every airport in the UK.
To suggest otherwise is a point from which you cannot argue a position with any credibility.
I'm sorry rsuggit but that's the reality of this issue.
Last edited by qwertyplop; 15th Jul 2008 at 18:41.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Teesside
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm back
There seem to be five basic themes running throgh this post.
1. The banning of liquids over 100ml and pointy objects being taken through security checkpoints is wrong.
b. All aircrew no matter what their status should be treat as heads of state and be able to pass through security at any time without let or hindrance.
3. All passengers are a complete and utter waste of time and should be banned from travelling on aircraft.
d. All security personel are halfwits who are paid the minimum wage and should be treat as something less than human no matter what their instructions are from local management.
5.Anyone which includes myself and RSUGGIT who does not agree wholeheartedly with the above should not be allowed to say so and should be instantly regarded as a threat to the PPRUNE Forum and be attacked in highly personal terms.
I'm waiting for reasoned argument.
Reading the earlier posts I really don't think that you have a leg to stand on.
Pilots yes......professional?....I think that is a moot point if you read some of the preceding horror stories before you answer.
1. The banning of liquids over 100ml and pointy objects being taken through security checkpoints is wrong.
b. All aircrew no matter what their status should be treat as heads of state and be able to pass through security at any time without let or hindrance.
3. All passengers are a complete and utter waste of time and should be banned from travelling on aircraft.
d. All security personel are halfwits who are paid the minimum wage and should be treat as something less than human no matter what their instructions are from local management.
5.Anyone which includes myself and RSUGGIT who does not agree wholeheartedly with the above should not be allowed to say so and should be instantly regarded as a threat to the PPRUNE Forum and be attacked in highly personal terms.
I'm waiting for reasoned argument.
Reading the earlier posts I really don't think that you have a leg to stand on.
Pilots yes......professional?....I think that is a moot point if you read some of the preceding horror stories before you answer.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reasoned Arguement
Hi, SLF here, I just thought I'd go back to the start of the thread and look for some reasoned argument. Post 1 started the topic with a question, post 2 asked another, post 3 was an anecdote and post 4 was reasoned argument, to the effect that there is no point in trying to disarm a soldier by removing his ceremonial belt buckle (or butter knife) while letting him keep his rifle (or aeroplane). Quite well reasoned, I'd say.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 61
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paarmo, what's clear is that
1.] You don't have a clue of what you're talking about.
OR
2.] You are a troll on this subject deliberately talking nonsense to elicit heated responses.
Either way you are a waste.
1.] You don't have a clue of what you're talking about.
OR
2.] You are a troll on this subject deliberately talking nonsense to elicit heated responses.
Either way you are a waste.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just Following The Regs
00:30 Security level is raised to critical.
05:30 Terrorists break into Policeman's house and hold wife and kids hostage.
05:35 Wife calls husband and tells him to take substance through security to give to nasty man.
05:45 Flight crew are meticulously searched.
05:55 Policeman walks straight though security (as always).
08:45 Editors of newspapers rush to get new top story on the late second print.
Good thing there are no exceptions because we all know that "loopholes are the biggest threat to security". The policeman could also quite easily be a security worker with the same results.
05:30 Terrorists break into Policeman's house and hold wife and kids hostage.
05:35 Wife calls husband and tells him to take substance through security to give to nasty man.
05:45 Flight crew are meticulously searched.
05:55 Policeman walks straight though security (as always).
08:45 Editors of newspapers rush to get new top story on the late second print.
Good thing there are no exceptions because we all know that "loopholes are the biggest threat to security". The policeman could also quite easily be a security worker with the same results.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Both sides of 40W
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paarmo:
I hope you enjoyed your short rest. But, it looks like your new (repeat) arguments still don´t embrace the essential point of this whole post, and that is; ´what is the point of making flight crew undergo constant security checks´? The same crew that are in charge of taking an aircraft from A to B in a safe and regulated way. The same crew that have at their disposition a number of elements that make a 100ml bottle of water look like cotton candy. The same crew that have at their nail clippers taken away because the axe O/b, is not a liability! The same people that are flying and are given the responsability of being crew members of a registered aircraft and are employed by an official company, etc,etc! Random checks yes, but the constant checks and abuse, NO!!!
I hope you enjoyed your short rest. But, it looks like your new (repeat) arguments still don´t embrace the essential point of this whole post, and that is; ´what is the point of making flight crew undergo constant security checks´? The same crew that are in charge of taking an aircraft from A to B in a safe and regulated way. The same crew that have at their disposition a number of elements that make a 100ml bottle of water look like cotton candy. The same crew that have at their nail clippers taken away because the axe O/b, is not a liability! The same people that are flying and are given the responsability of being crew members of a registered aircraft and are employed by an official company, etc,etc! Random checks yes, but the constant checks and abuse, NO!!!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Herts
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"When may I expect you to counter the points I made about the right educated people, with the right background and level of vetting and ongoing monitoring, with the right access to the pertinent intel, from the right crown service working in partnership with other crown services, doing the REAL job that security have no hope in a month of Sundays doing??"
I'm very happy that we have such people working for us.
As soon as you can guarantee with your life that they will be 100% accurate and successful, I'l be even happier.
But, we seem to have reached an impass, and neither has convinced the other. I'm surprised at these negative attitudes to security, but I cant sway you over to my point of view. I'm a little surprised considering that you life is more at risk from terrorism than mine.
However, before we come to a standstill, I have only one last suggestion. If you feel it's really that bad, do what any other employee has a right to so... go on strike.
I'm very happy that we have such people working for us.
As soon as you can guarantee with your life that they will be 100% accurate and successful, I'l be even happier.
But, we seem to have reached an impass, and neither has convinced the other. I'm surprised at these negative attitudes to security, but I cant sway you over to my point of view. I'm a little surprised considering that you life is more at risk from terrorism than mine.
However, before we come to a standstill, I have only one last suggestion. If you feel it's really that bad, do what any other employee has a right to so... go on strike.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: not a million miles from old BKK
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aww rsuggitt - don't go. What will we do without you? There'll only be paarma left. 
Besides, we can't let you go until we know how you got on with setting fire to your shoe. At least give us the benefit of admitting that the shoe check is a complete waste of time.
p.s. The guys don't need to go on strike. All that is required for all of us - pax and crew - is to 'JUST SAY 'NO'!'
Besides, we can't let you go until we know how you got on with setting fire to your shoe. At least give us the benefit of admitting that the shoe check is a complete waste of time.
p.s. The guys don't need to go on strike. All that is required for all of us - pax and crew - is to 'JUST SAY 'NO'!'
Rsuggitt, everyday, I put my life on the line 100% for you/yours, I am the last line of defence, so at least give me the courtesy that you would give the security folks. Failing that go hide in your hole because the extremists will have won their economic "jihad"