Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Airport Security again...

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Airport Security again...

Old 2nd Dec 2008, 16:22
  #21 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: oxfordshire
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why on earth would you want to do that? If it gets found you are going to have some serious questions to answer all to prove to yourself you can do it. Not very wise IMHO.
hotmetal is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2008, 16:24
  #22 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why on earth hijack another airliner?
It's so old hat....
And it already has done all the economic and other damage you could wish for.

Why not sail up the Thames, put a couple dozen gunmen ashore, and attack Canary Wharf, the Tower, the City, Harrods and the Tate (while you're at it).

If you use an old barge, you can also set up a whole lot of pre-targeted mortars under a tarp. And then finally blow up the barge in front of the Houses of Parliament.

ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2008, 17:00
  #23 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There should be a couple of que's...

Line up in the appropriate lane if you....
Lane 1) "Believe in Imaginary Friends"
Lane 2) "Think that you should be checked, cause you think you might be a terrorist, but not sure"
Lane 3) "If you believe in security, because you think it achieves something" (special one for security staff and police people)
Lane 4) "if you are a grannie"
Lane 5) "If you are none of the above - straight through.
Raggyman is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2008, 17:02
  #24 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Who's to say they don't want hairy blokes??? May be that's where we are all going wrong and the offer is not nubile young ladies....just going out to get a life!!
Ah yeah, sorry...
Raggyman is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2008, 17:15
  #25 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Paphos Cyprus
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

My son recently came through LHR, not thinking with a 250ml shower gel in his little plastic bag, he was waived through. If I take my belt off my trousers will fall down, that will cause a stir, will I be arrested for indecent exposure, as I was ordered to take my belt off.
Paphian is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2008, 17:41
  #26 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somewhere between E17487 and F75775
Age: 80
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Metal Detectors

My wife (a sculptress) was stopped at GRN this year with a sculpting tool in her handbag - about 6" long, blunt, rounded spatular ends.

The Guardia said it was obvious the tool didn't represent any sort of threat and she could take it on board.

However she knew that the attitude for the return journey at STN would be completely different and as the tool was very expensive the Guardia brought her over to me (waiting to see her depart) and she handed it back to me.

Consistency, anyone ?
OFSO is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2008, 20:49
  #27 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"... the Guardia brought her over to me (waiting to see her depart) and she handed it back to me.
Consistency, anyone ?"
Consistency? Of course not... what on earth do you expect?

But I take my hat off to that Guardia who had the courtesy to solve a potential problem in the simplest way possible.

ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2008, 21:04
  #28 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 215
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why on earth hijack another airliner?
It's so old hat....

That's old hat too, except guy Fawkes was caught and punished.

Just goes to show that terrorism is not a new problem!
ve3id is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2008, 21:10
  #29 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Passengers will no doubt be reassured to know that all air-side staff are subject to the same ridiculous security procedures.
I am not sure what I could hide under my belt, that can't be hidden in the large van that I am driving!
When I arrive at the aircraft to carry out important safety checks I shouldn't still be thinking about this nonsense & neither should the flight crew preparing for the flight. IMO it's only a matter of time before this distraction contributes to an accident.
Reasonable security should be welcomed by everyone.
GAZIN is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2008, 21:24
  #30 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bolton,Lancs,UK
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Why all the fuss?

I learned a long time ago that if you put your mobile phone, coins and watch in your hand luggage and remove your belt before you get to the x-ray machine it makes life a lot easier. How hard is that?
It takes a little time to sort yourself out after but not as much as having to go through the arch again, only to be frisked.
You know it makes sense

Egerton Flyer is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2008, 21:49
  #31 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lincoln, England
Age: 80
Posts: 54
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Who says stainless steel is not detectable? I had a heart bypass operation some years ago and they apparently held my sternum/ribs back together with stainless steel wire - which set off a highly sensitive metal detector at an airport in Wisconsin 7 months later. On removing my shirt I was able to satisfy security by revealing a rather large scar!
AvroLincoln is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2008, 03:32
  #32 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OFSO good to see someone using discretion.

I wish I could say the same at Brisbane where my 3 year old son had his souvenir children's Moomin fork, spoon and chopstick set in a plastic case in his bag along with nibbles, nappies and toys.

Now he's minus the fork
makintw is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2008, 03:34
  #33 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dublin
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I thought belt removal has been the norm for quite a while now!? It certainly has in a lot of the airports I go through.
RYR_Jockey is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2008, 04:07
  #34 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
One of my more memorable experiences was having to remove my shoes to walk through the X-Ray machine at Lagos.

The floor was... shall we say... 'Africa'.
MTOW is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2008, 05:04
  #35 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Knitting needles

I'm glad they are confiscating those knitting needles - Grannie might be planning to knit an Afghan! Wouldn't it be great if you could choose to fly an airline that doesn't allow ANY carry-on bags? With swipe-card keys, plastic belt buckle and sandals you could board the plane in record time.
cyclenorm is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2008, 06:20
  #36 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: NZ
Age: 55
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If security was so good, why are there people being detected with Drugs after a long haul flight, and they are the ones who get caught after the flight, how many get through
Security is not looking for drugs! And they are not going to be detected going through a metal detector or with a wand unless concealed in foil. Customs screen for drugs on arrival

Security is a tough job, especially when you have to pretend that you are doing a good job. It is a bit of a joke, but atleast it stops the grannies from taking on knitting needles, cause you never know when a grannie is going to turn on you.

For those who think security is just for show perhaps you should contact your local Security provider and ask to view the assortment of knives, weapons, dangerous goods and other items taken from pax (including grannies!). It is generally not the job of the Security Officer to make a decision on intent. And remember, at some point "grannie" is going to go to the loo and unless she takes her needles with her, the baddie sitting next to her now has them!

Security Officers don't make the rules and don't always agree with them, but it is their job to abide by them. No-one wants their face plastered all over CNN as being the person who let the bomb/knife etc through. Some of the "morons" & "jackasses" at my local airport are ex-forces, teachers, nurses, cabin crew and even pilots. Oh, and of course a few of them are morons & jackasses!
Massey AvMan is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2008, 07:27
  #37 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Classified
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

On a more serious note here is an excellent article from the NY times last year:

New York Times Monday, December 31, 2007
December 28, 2007, 6:52 pm
The Airport Security Follies
Six years after the terrorist attacks of 2001, airport security remains a theater of the absurd. The changes put in place following the September 11th catastrophe have been drastic, and largely of two kinds: those practical and effective, and those irrational, wasteful and pointless.
The first variety have taken place almost entirely behind the scenes. Explosives scanning for checked luggage, for instance, was long overdue and is perhaps the most welcome addition. Unfortunately, at concourse checkpoints all across America, the madness of passenger screening continues in plain view. It began with pat-downs and the senseless confiscation of pointy objects. Then came the mandatory shoe removal, followed in the summer of 2006 by the prohibition of liquids and gels. We can only imagine what is next.
To understand what makes these measures so absurd, we first need to revisit the morning of September 11th, and grasp exactly what it was the 19 hijackers so easily took advantage of. Conventional wisdom says the terrorists exploited a weakness in airport security by smuggling aboard box-cutters. What they actually exploited was a weakness in our mindset — a set of presumptions based on the decades-long track record of hijackings.
In years past, a takeover meant hostage negotiations and standoffs; crews were trained in the concept of “passive resistance.” All of that changed forever the instant American Airlines Flight 11 collided with the north tower. What weapons the 19 men possessed mattered little; the success of their plan relied fundamentally on the element of surprise. And in this respect, their scheme was all but guaranteed not to fail.
For several reasons — particularly the awareness of passengers and crew — just the opposite is true today. Any hijacker would face a planeload of angry and frightened people ready to fight back. Say what you want of terrorists, they cannot afford to waste time and resources on schemes with a high probability of failure. And thus the September 11th template is all but useless to potential hijackers.
No matter that a deadly sharp can be fashioned from virtually anything found on a plane, be it a broken wine bottle or a snapped-off length of plastic, we are content wasting billions of taxpayer dollars and untold hours of labor in a delusional attempt to thwart an attack that has already happened, asked to queue for absurd lengths of time, subject to embarrassing pat-downs and loss of our belongings.
The folly is much the same with respect to the liquids and gels restrictions, introduced two summers ago following the breakup of a London-based cabal that was planning to blow up jetliners using liquid explosives. Allegations surrounding the conspiracy were revealed to substantially embellished. In an August, 2006 article in the New York Times, British officials admitted that public statements made following the arrests were overcooked, inaccurate and “unfortunate.” The plot’s leaders were still in the process of recruiting and radicalizing would-be bombers. They lacked passports, airline tickets and, most critical of all, they had been unsuccessful in actually producing liquid explosives. Investigators later described the widely parroted report that up to ten U.S airliners had been targeted as “speculative” and “exaggerated.”
Among first to express serious skepticism about the bombers’ readiness was Thomas C. Greene, whose essay in The Register explored the extreme difficulty of mixing and deploying the types of binary explosives purportedly to be used. Green conferred with Professor Jimmie C. Oxley, an explosives specialist who has closely studied the type of deadly cocktail coveted by the London plotters.
“The notion that deadly explosives can be cooked up in an airplane lavatory is pure fiction,” Greene told me during an interview. “A handy gimmick for action movies and shows like ‘24.’ The reality proves disappointing: it’s rather awkward to do chemistry in an airplane toilet. Nevertheless, our official protectors and deciders respond to such notions instinctively, because they’re familiar to us: we’ve all seen scenarios on television and in the cinema. This, incredibly, is why you can no longer carry a bottle of water onto a plane.”
The threat of liquid explosives does exist, but it cannot be readily brewed from the kinds of liquids we have devoted most of our resources to keeping away from planes. Certain benign liquids, when combined under highly specific conditions, are indeed dangerous. However, creating those conditions poses enormous challenges for a saboteur.
“I would not hesitate to allow that liquid explosives can pose a danger,” Greene added, recalling Ramzi Yousef’s 1994 detonation of a small nitroglycerine bomb aboard Philippine Airlines Flight 434. The explosion was a test run for the so-called “Project Bojinka,” an Al Qaeda scheme to simultaneously destroy a dozen widebody airliners over the Pacific Ocean. “But the idea that confiscating someone’s toothpaste is going to keep us safe is too ridiculous to entertain.”
Yet that’s exactly what we’ve been doing. The three-ounce container rule is silly enough — after all, what’s to stop somebody from carrying several small bottles each full of the same substance — but consider for a moment the hypocrisy of T.S.A.’s confiscation policy. At every concourse checkpoint you’ll see a bin or barrel brimming with contraband containers taken from passengers for having exceeded the volume limit. Now, the assumption has to be that the materials in those containers are potentially hazardous. If not, why were they seized in the first place? But if so, why are they dumped unceremoniously into the trash? They are not quarantined or handed over to the bomb squad; they are simply thrown away. The agency seems to be saying that it knows these things are harmless. But it’s going to steal them anyway, and either you accept it or you don’t fly.
But of all the contradictions and self-defeating measures T.S.A. has come up with, possibly none is more blatantly ludicrous than the policy decreeing that pilots and flight attendants undergo the same x-ray and metal detector screening as passengers. What makes it ludicrous is that tens of thousands of other airport workers, from baggage loaders and fuelers to cabin cleaners and maintenance personnel, are subject only to occasional random screenings when they come to work.
These are individuals with full access to aircraft, inside and out. Some are airline employees, though a high percentage are contract staff belonging to outside companies. The fact that crew members, many of whom are former military fliers, and all of whom endured rigorous background checks prior to being hired, are required to take out their laptops and surrender their hobby knives, while a caterer or cabin cleaner sidesteps the entire process and walks onto a plane unimpeded, nullifies almost everything our T.S.A. minders have said and done since September 11th, 2001. If there is a more ringing let-me-get-this-straight scenario anywhere in the realm of airport security, I’d like to hear it.
I’m not suggesting that the rules be tightened for non-crew members so much as relaxed for all accredited workers. Which perhaps urges us to reconsider the entire purpose of airport security:
The truth is, regardless of how many pointy tools and shampoo bottles we confiscate, there shall remain an unlimited number of ways to smuggle dangerous items onto a plane. The precise shape, form and substance of those items is irrelevant. We are not fighting materials, we are fighting the imagination and cleverness of the would-be saboteur.
Thus, what most people fail to grasp is that the nuts and bolts of keeping terrorists away from planes is not really the job of airport security at all. Rather, it’s the job of government agencies and law enforcement. It’s not very glamorous, but the grunt work of hunting down terrorists takes place far off stage, relying on the diligent work of cops, spies and intelligence officers. Air crimes need to be stopped at the planning stages. By the time a terrorist gets to the airport, chances are it’s too late.
In the end, I’m not sure which is more troubling, the inanity of the existing regulations, or the average American’s acceptance of them and willingness to be humiliated. These wasteful and tedious protocols have solidified into what appears to be indefinite policy, with little or no opposition. There ought to be a tide of protest rising up against this mania. Where is it? At its loudest, the voice of the traveling public is one of grumbled resignation. The op-ed pages are silent, the pundits have nothing meaningful to say.
The airlines, for their part, are in something of a bind. The willingness of our carriers to allow flying to become an increasingly unpleasant experience suggests a business sense of masochistic capitulation. On the other hand, imagine the outrage among security zealots should airlines be caught lobbying for what is perceived to be a dangerous abrogation of security and responsibility — even if it’s not. Carriers caught plenty of flack, almost all of it unfair, in the aftermath of September 11th. Understandably, they no longer want that liability.
As for Americans themselves, I suppose that it’s less than realistic to expect street protests or airport sit-ins from citizen fliers, and maybe we shouldn’t expect too much from a press and media that have had no trouble letting countless other injustices slip to the wayside. And rather than rethink our policies, the best we’ve come up with is a way to skirt them — for a fee, naturally — via schemes like Registered Traveler. Americans can now pay to have their personal information put on file just to avoid the hassle of airport security. As cynical as George Orwell ever was, I doubt he imagined the idea of citizens offering up money for their own subjugation.
How we got to this point is an interesting study in reactionary politics, fear-mongering and a disconcerting willingness of the American public to accept almost anything in the name of “security.” Conned and frightened, our nation demands not actual security, but security spectacle. And although a reasonable percentage of passengers, along with most security experts, would concur such theater serves no useful purpose, there has been surprisingly little outrage. In that regard, maybe we’ve gotten exactly the system we deserve.
D.Lamination is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2008, 07:35
  #38 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South East
Age: 54
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
We're not talking about what pax try to smuggle through...
The point is that after 5 year CRC checks on UK nationals ONLY working at UK airports (and in the near future DNA records and biometric ID cards) aviation professionals are required to go through the same degrading experience every day, sometimes numerous times.

As an engineer i can think of 100 ways to bring an aircraft down without even considering placing my shoe in the avionics bay or my belt left around the flying control cables. Pilots have the opportunity to drive the aircraft into whatever they want. Cabin crew have the opportunity to visit the flight deck and poison the pilots with their coffee. Why doesn't this happen..? Because we're all professionals. It would be appreciated if the powers that be would recognise this.

The annoying thing is that it is just lip service... how easy would it be to make a molotov cocktail out of a glass duty free bottle of alcohol, a sock and a lighter (or matches) on board if someone wanted to but these items are all available on board accessible to everyone over 18. The list goes on.

D. lamination... excellent article which truely hits the nail on the head (excuse the pun!)
Alwaysairbus is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2008, 09:24
  #39 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: NZ
Age: 55
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

The point is that after 5 year CRC checks on UK nationals ONLY working at UK airports (and in the near future DNA records and biometric ID cards) aviation professionals are required to go through the same degrading experience every day, sometimes numerous times.
Where do we then draw the line? Pilots, crew, ground staff, engineers, caterers, cleaners, fuelers, who should get screened and who shouldn't, who do we consider "professional" and beyond intentionally interferring with a flight?

Checks done for ID cards don't weed out the terrorists as generally terrorists don't have criminal records. More worrying are temporary ID cards issued to new starts, short term employees and contractors etc ... no police, employment checks etc. Around here that can take up to 3 months and all the while that person has access to aircraft!

I think the word "degrading" is a bit melodramatic, that's the sort of thing a pax who hasn't flown for 10 years uses, not a regular who knows pretty much exactly what's expected. But I don't deny it can be an inconvenience and irritating.

I do get your point about an engineer or pilot being able to bring an aircraft down and so too can a caterer, etc..
Massey AvMan is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2008, 09:49
  #40 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SWE
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Massey AvMan,

You ask where to draw the line, why not ask yourself who can bring down an airliner without smuggling anything through airport security and you will have a good answer.

One thing you have missed is the fact that most of us pilots are not asking to be totally excluded from screening, we just want it to be sensible i.e. screen us for guns and bombs, not nailclippers and water.

How do you suppose a caterer can bring down an airliner without smuggling anything through security?
Ladusvala is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.