Latest news on Shoe Bomb (Non Political/Racial comments only)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Malanda:
So then he is of West Indian lineage. West Indians just don't make good suicide bombers!
Look at the West Indies cricket team for example, the bunch of scrubs got a beating from Sri Lanka.
There might be a correlation between the propensitey for suicide bombings and cricketing performance in this case
So then he is of West Indian lineage. West Indians just don't make good suicide bombers!
Look at the West Indies cricket team for example, the bunch of scrubs got a beating from Sri Lanka.
There might be a correlation between the propensitey for suicide bombings and cricketing performance in this case
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: dallas,tx,usa
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paper tiger,
One would think it reasonable to imagine that the FINAL AUTHORITY as to who goes, and who stays, should be the skipper.
Unfortunately, as Captains like Stuart Clapson discovered, marketing departmants run airlines and accordingly they have the final say regards to who gets on.
Nowadays, any Captains refusing to carry a passenger need a damn good excuse. (I use this as a recent example, NOT in order to drag BA flightcrew or Captain Clapson down).
Said Captains receive little support from the company for fear of a discrimination lawsuit. (I believe all airline tickets should have a "right to refuse service" disclaimer, similar to many other private enterprises. Purchase of such ticket would then become an acceptance of such a condition.)
Sounds crazy I know but they're so concerned about ANY negative implications that they calculate which risks are deemed acceptable. Funny how they're not the ones actually personally subject to the same risks that flight crews are! Sweeping stuff under the carpet doesn't help if you're five miles high when an otherwise avoidable situation occurs.
Marketing majors pore over passenger surveys, take the data and throw the much needed common sense (and experiance) out of the window.
They need to start listening to their front line "troops". After all, the flight attendants spend the MOST time in the company of the passengers. This is real time feedback, not some selective telephone survey taken days after.
But then I guess in their eyes most flight attendants don't have the required "I'm smart
because I went to business school" certificate hanging on the wall.
I'll take practical first hand knowledge any day.
Rant over.
One would think it reasonable to imagine that the FINAL AUTHORITY as to who goes, and who stays, should be the skipper.
Unfortunately, as Captains like Stuart Clapson discovered, marketing departmants run airlines and accordingly they have the final say regards to who gets on.
Nowadays, any Captains refusing to carry a passenger need a damn good excuse. (I use this as a recent example, NOT in order to drag BA flightcrew or Captain Clapson down).
Said Captains receive little support from the company for fear of a discrimination lawsuit. (I believe all airline tickets should have a "right to refuse service" disclaimer, similar to many other private enterprises. Purchase of such ticket would then become an acceptance of such a condition.)
Sounds crazy I know but they're so concerned about ANY negative implications that they calculate which risks are deemed acceptable. Funny how they're not the ones actually personally subject to the same risks that flight crews are! Sweeping stuff under the carpet doesn't help if you're five miles high when an otherwise avoidable situation occurs.
Marketing majors pore over passenger surveys, take the data and throw the much needed common sense (and experiance) out of the window.
They need to start listening to their front line "troops". After all, the flight attendants spend the MOST time in the company of the passengers. This is real time feedback, not some selective telephone survey taken days after.
But then I guess in their eyes most flight attendants don't have the required "I'm smart
because I went to business school" certificate hanging on the wall.
I'll take practical first hand knowledge any day.
Rant over.
Guest
Posts: n/a
FFFlyer - there are indeed various detection systems that will pick up explosives such as C4, Semtex, PETN, NG, RDX, EGDN etc in checked baggage through the use of scatter radiation.
The main problem is that these systems are very expensive (when they first came out they were well over US$1m each!) and though most major European airports are equipped with them from what I understand coverage is very sparse in the USA and generally limited to major international gateways.
Hopefully, as demand picks up prices will drop making them more widespread.
There are also vapour detectors in use that will pick up passengers carrying such items on their person or in their handbaggage.
Incidentally, the reason for the 'Samsonite ban' was simply that hardsided cases such as the Samsonite and Delsey permitted the installation of hidden compartments and/or the use of existing cavities for the carriage of explosives or other contrabrand. They were therefore given a more thorough examination, though I don't think there was ever a ban per se - most of the world's airline crews use them!
The main problem is that these systems are very expensive (when they first came out they were well over US$1m each!) and though most major European airports are equipped with them from what I understand coverage is very sparse in the USA and generally limited to major international gateways.
Hopefully, as demand picks up prices will drop making them more widespread.
There are also vapour detectors in use that will pick up passengers carrying such items on their person or in their handbaggage.
Incidentally, the reason for the 'Samsonite ban' was simply that hardsided cases such as the Samsonite and Delsey permitted the installation of hidden compartments and/or the use of existing cavities for the carriage of explosives or other contrabrand. They were therefore given a more thorough examination, though I don't think there was ever a ban per se - most of the world's airline crews use them!
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since the mid 80s or so C-4 and other explosives made commercially have been required by international agreement to include an agent that allows them to be detected by odor.
However, that agent is not required in the production of those explosives and so I wonder if explosives made outside the US and Europe really can be detected!
I am not sure what molecule these systems use, it may just be the vapor addative that is required, if so, then all of this is probably crap, as many less reputable countries are probably capable of manufacture without the addative.
Cheers
Wino
However, that agent is not required in the production of those explosives and so I wonder if explosives made outside the US and Europe really can be detected!
I am not sure what molecule these systems use, it may just be the vapor addative that is required, if so, then all of this is probably crap, as many less reputable countries are probably capable of manufacture without the addative.
Cheers
Wino
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did anyone else hear the Home Secretary on BBC Radio 4 PM say that the Bomber had been foiled. I'm glad he though that the security operation was a success. <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> <img src="mad.gif" border="0">
Rainbow Chaser
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: At home, mostly!
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What puzzles me from the first report (the newspaper link in the first post starting this thread) is that the French authorities appear to have held Reid back BECAUSE he was on a one-way ticket without luggage, he missed his original flight, was put up at American Airlines expense and permitted by the airline to travel on the following day. Has this information been corroborated? If so it makes one wonder about the sanity of of the airline officials in Paris that they overrule the authorities. What is the situation here - if authorities suspect but airline overrules? Can a person not be searched under relevant terrorism laws? and if so...wouldn't the clothes/shoes have tested positive for explosives?
I am totally puzzled.
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">
I am totally puzzled.
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Rainbow Chaser
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: At home, mostly!
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and as a corollary to my previous post - if all is as reported, was the Captain then informed of the French authorities' suspicions and Reid's seat number brought to the attention of cabin crew so they could keep an eye on him? If neither of these occurred then American Airlines is extremely fortunate that another airborne atrocity didn't happen.
<img src="eek.gif" border="0">
<img src="eek.gif" border="0">
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Broken spectre,
AA kicked the guy back to the French police who questioned the guy and supposedly searched him and verified his as good to go.
After that he was then carried by AA. It was not the french who identified him. IT was American Airlines. It is the french that said he was to fly.
So one more time. American Airlines extra private security profiled the guy, and sent him to the French to be more thoroughly investigated.
Cheers
Wino
AA kicked the guy back to the French police who questioned the guy and supposedly searched him and verified his as good to go.
After that he was then carried by AA. It was not the french who identified him. IT was American Airlines. It is the french that said he was to fly.
So one more time. American Airlines extra private security profiled the guy, and sent him to the French to be more thoroughly investigated.
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: STL
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the thread "Tip off FBI, not FAA" that appears on the second page of R&N, I posted a link to the arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui for his involvement in the 9 11 plot. According to an AP story today, Richard Reid attended the same London mosque as that of Zacarias Moussaoui. The leader of that mosque warned authorities of extremist activities. According to a BBC report, Peter Herbert, deputy chairman of London's Metropolitan Police Authority, confirmed that those warnings were ignored.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: California, USA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Several questions come to my mind:
1. Was the Captain of the original flight informed of Shoe-man's removal? Shoe-man could have had accomplices on the airplane.
2. Was the Captain of the second flight informed of Shoe-man's presence and informed that Shoe-man had been removed from the same flight the day before?
3. Did the French questioners contact the British government, since Shoe-man was on a British passport?
4. Were American authorities (the destination) notified and was their approval requested? According to news reports, a link has now been established between Shoe-man and Al Qeada training camps. If that link could have been established BEFORE flight, Shoe-man should not have been permitted to board any flight anywhere.
5. Once having been held off an airplane long enough to miss a flight, maybe the "passenger" should always be given an involuntary reroute. This might just be enough to break the chain of events, especially if nothing specific turns up. The same flight 24 hours later seems risky to me.
6. I hear that now the big security emphasis is on the inspection of shoes. This assumes that the NEXT incident will be a carbon copy of the last attempt. Don't we yet know better?
7. How is it that Shoe-man was allowed to board with matches in his carry-on? Lighters and matches have no productive use aboard an airplane.
1. Was the Captain of the original flight informed of Shoe-man's removal? Shoe-man could have had accomplices on the airplane.
2. Was the Captain of the second flight informed of Shoe-man's presence and informed that Shoe-man had been removed from the same flight the day before?
3. Did the French questioners contact the British government, since Shoe-man was on a British passport?
4. Were American authorities (the destination) notified and was their approval requested? According to news reports, a link has now been established between Shoe-man and Al Qeada training camps. If that link could have been established BEFORE flight, Shoe-man should not have been permitted to board any flight anywhere.
5. Once having been held off an airplane long enough to miss a flight, maybe the "passenger" should always be given an involuntary reroute. This might just be enough to break the chain of events, especially if nothing specific turns up. The same flight 24 hours later seems risky to me.
6. I hear that now the big security emphasis is on the inspection of shoes. This assumes that the NEXT incident will be a carbon copy of the last attempt. Don't we yet know better?
7. How is it that Shoe-man was allowed to board with matches in his carry-on? Lighters and matches have no productive use aboard an airplane.
Pegase Driver
Well , according to my info, the following scenario took place:
Mr shoe-man was questionned before embarking the first flight by AA security staff, who questionned the fact that he was travelling without luggage and had a brand new passport ( he had a return ticket, in fact a multiple legs one bought in a travel agency )They ( the AA security staff) reffered the man to the French police ( Police de l'air et des frontieres or PAF)to check his credentials. The police , according to their spokeman , only checked this the passport, and said it was a genuine one, made by the British consulate in Brussels , Mr shoe-man had expalined he lost his former pasport while on holidays in Benelux . The British authorities (Embassy ?) confirmed the passport was genuine. the Police then returned the man to AA security, who then decided that he could travel , but because the police investigation took too much time he missed the flight.
AA then apologised and put Mr shoe man in a CDG hotel at their expenses and had him travel on the next day same flight.
Now of coure both AA security and French police say they did their jobs correctly and accuse each other.
I do not think ( but it is speculation from me ) that the Captains of both flights were informed .
One thing is for sure is that airline security staff authority is dictated by the individual Airline policy. Only very few airlines ( exception : El Al ) give carte blanche to their security staff at check in to refuse boarding on suspicion only . But this might change now. Cooperation with local police authorities is also a problem in some countries, especially as far as their own nationals are concerned. ( But this was not the case in CDG apparently )
Mr shoe-man was questionned before embarking the first flight by AA security staff, who questionned the fact that he was travelling without luggage and had a brand new passport ( he had a return ticket, in fact a multiple legs one bought in a travel agency )They ( the AA security staff) reffered the man to the French police ( Police de l'air et des frontieres or PAF)to check his credentials. The police , according to their spokeman , only checked this the passport, and said it was a genuine one, made by the British consulate in Brussels , Mr shoe-man had expalined he lost his former pasport while on holidays in Benelux . The British authorities (Embassy ?) confirmed the passport was genuine. the Police then returned the man to AA security, who then decided that he could travel , but because the police investigation took too much time he missed the flight.
AA then apologised and put Mr shoe man in a CDG hotel at their expenses and had him travel on the next day same flight.
Now of coure both AA security and French police say they did their jobs correctly and accuse each other.
I do not think ( but it is speculation from me ) that the Captains of both flights were informed .
One thing is for sure is that airline security staff authority is dictated by the individual Airline policy. Only very few airlines ( exception : El Al ) give carte blanche to their security staff at check in to refuse boarding on suspicion only . But this might change now. Cooperation with local police authorities is also a problem in some countries, especially as far as their own nationals are concerned. ( But this was not the case in CDG apparently )
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I am amazed that irrespective of anything else, ANYBODY can board a long haul flight with NO baggage in the current climate and not be subject to intense questioning. After AA security referred him back to the French police, who we know don't have the best reputation in the world (try going to them if you are a tourist and have an incident in France!), and the police found "nothing wrong" I can't believe that nobody at AA was still suspicious.
As mentioned a reroute would be good. Inform all the flight and cabin crew. And now a full change of clothes seems likely.
This guy didnt look too clever, and the fact that he could have gone to the toilet and light the fuse undisturbed and successfully caused a disaster, but didnt shows he was a bit dim. It's just a matter of time before one of his colleagues with an IQ higher than 15 tries his luck, and that is worrying.
I hear stories of all kinds of (innocent) people being offloaded due to a perceived threat, yet the shoe guy after causing MUCH justified suspicion was eventually welcomed on board.
Watch out!!
As mentioned a reroute would be good. Inform all the flight and cabin crew. And now a full change of clothes seems likely.
This guy didnt look too clever, and the fact that he could have gone to the toilet and light the fuse undisturbed and successfully caused a disaster, but didnt shows he was a bit dim. It's just a matter of time before one of his colleagues with an IQ higher than 15 tries his luck, and that is worrying.
I hear stories of all kinds of (innocent) people being offloaded due to a perceived threat, yet the shoe guy after causing MUCH justified suspicion was eventually welcomed on board.
Watch out!!
I am a figment of my own imagination
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at a positive aspect of the situation it now appears that not only is their greater vigilance on the part of the cabin staff and pax but there is a far greater liklehood that people will become actively involved now the it has been so horrificaly demonstrated that passive complience is not necceserily going to be the safest thing to do. It's everybody's ass in a sling and up to all to pitch in and help.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh yeah, you'll be just fine with those credentials, Superpilot. you wont arouse any suspicion at all, and all security be waived for you because you have attitude... <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
So, what exactly is the purpose of your trip? <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
So, what exactly is the purpose of your trip? <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting comment in today’s Daily Telegraph pointing out that the intended day of travelling was the 13th anniversary of the Pan Am Lockerbie disaster.
<a href="http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/12/29/wreid29.xml&sSheet=/portal/2001/12/29/ixport.html" target="_blank">http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/12/29/wreid29.xml&sSheet=/portal/2001/12/29/ixport.html</a>
<a href="http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/12/29/wreid29.xml&sSheet=/portal/2001/12/29/ixport.html" target="_blank">http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/12/29/wreid29.xml&sSheet=/portal/2001/12/29/ixport.html</a>