Explosion and shots fired at Istanbuls Ataturk Airport

[Metro man]

Now that enhanced security has made hijacking an aircraft extremely difficult, a quick, cheap and simple alternative is to attack the airport instead. The number of potential casualties is greater, the level of publicity is similar and the disruption is longer lasting and costlier.

Any halfwit can drive up to the terminal, spray off a few magazine loads of ammunition and press the detonator button on his suicide vest.

The next step will be security checks on all vehicles approaching an airport, screening of passengers and baggage prior to entry, and access only granted to those actually travelling.

The sterile area is going to end up being moved back from the departure lounge to the airport perimeter fence.

[AirportPlanner1]

Metroman

I don't think that will happen. Even if it did, they would just turn attentions to the central railway station, the big shopping centre, the supermarket.....

Sadly people will never be completely safe, unless all liberty to move freely is removed and we barely leave our homes.

[Dont Hang Up]

The sterile area is going to end up being moved back from the departure lounge to the airport perimeter fence.

The sterile area is ultimately going to get moved back to everone's own front door. Every movement, every email, every text and every phone call.

But it's all for our safety, so that's just fine.

[RexBanner]

Don't Hang Up absolutely spot on. The idea of moving checkpoints further and further back is missing point entirely and just moving the existing problem somewhere else. Any place there are congregations of people they will attack. It makes no difference where you have the checkpoint.

[FlightDetent]

Aviation Security's primary task is to deter against unlawful acts targeted at aviation.

[Chronus]

Originally Posted by FlightDetent

Aviation Security's primary task is to deter against unlawful acts targeted at aviation.

To be a bit more specific, here is what it says in the Act of Parliament.

Aviation Security Act 1982

10. Purposes to which Part II applies.

(1)The purposes to which this Part of this Act applies are the protection against acts of violence—

(a)of aircraft, and of persons or property on board aircraft;

(b)of aerodromes, and of such persons or property as (in the case of persons) are at any time present in any part of an aerodrome or (in the case of property) forms part of an aerodrome or is at any time (whether permanently or temporarily) in any part of an aerodrome; and

(c)of air navigation installations which do not form part of an aerodrome.

(2)In this Part of this Act act of violence means any act (whether actual or potential, and whether done or to be done in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) which either—

(a)being an act done in Great Britain, constitutes, or

(b)if done in Great Britain would constitute,

the offence of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, culpable homicide or assault, or an offence under section 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28 or 29 of the Offences against the M1Person Act 1861, under section 2 of the M2Explosive Substances Act 1883 or under section 1 of the M3Criminal Damage Act 1971 or, in Scotland, the offence of malicious mischief.

[RexBanner]

Quite why we have ventured into the technicalities and legalities involved baffles me. Are we about to get into diagrams and explanations of the aeronautical part versus the restricted zone versus the sterile area ad infinitum?? If you have an attack on a checkpoint associated with airport security which is 10 yards, 100 yards or even a hundred miles away from the airport it's still an attack on the sodding airport!

So it seems some on here have huge difficulty in grasping such a simple point. That regardless of who or what this is an attack upon, the fact remains that it is an attack designed to take human life on a large scale and that people have died.

My point is wherever you have a congregation of people you will have a soft target, it's inevitable unless we are all about to be put under home curfew under lock and key. Moving any security checkpoint outside the terminal just moves that same amount of people - who would have been trying to enter through the checkpoint in its previous location - out into the open where they are now sitting ducks for a Kalashnikov attack. IT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE.

There is no fix for this situation. Unless we're about to lock ourselves away we are completely vulnerable in large groups, wherever those groups are. That's exactly why Isis are employing this as a method of killing.

[andrasz]

Passed through IST last evening, took of just an hour before the events, only heard about it eight hours later from the immigration officer at the other end.


From what I gather the attacks were NOT in the terminal building, but in the adjacent parking building (which is connected to the terminal on both levels). Absolutely agree with Rex above, in this case security arrangements worked as planned, they never got inside the terminal. This could have happened at any other crowded place in Istambul (as it did, several times...), or at any other major city. The only effective defence is intelligence, to pick out the rotten ones before they do anything, but yes that does involve tracking communications.

[mickjoebill]

ABC Australia reporting:
Terrorists arrived by taxi.
One went into arrivals hall on the ground floor and initiated the attack, the second to the departures level on second floor where he initiated a follow-up, this produced a flow of people outside, where the third terrorist had hung back.

However, CNN reporting that attack initiated outside, this gave two other terrorists opportunity to enter terminal.

From what I gather the attacks were NOT in the terminal building, but in the adjacent parking building (which is connected to the terminal on both levels).

I note in the two cctv pictures where bombs were seen going off, the majority of public do not have luggage, even hand luggage, perhaps these are non travelling public in and around the car park and arrivals area.

Mickjoebill

[Metro man]

At Manila's Ninoy Aquino Airport, there is a security check on the road leading to the terminal. At the entrance there is a check of ticket and passport and only those actually travelling are allowed through the door. Once through the door, all baggage is X-rayed and passengers go through a metal detector/hand held wands before proceeding to the check in counters. No one is allowed into the arrivals hall to meet incoming passengers, there is an area across the road where you line up under a sign with the first letter of the surname of the person you are meeting on it.

Third world countries employ this level of security for crime prevention as much as protection from terrorism. Travellers usually have money and valuables on them and make an attractive target for pickpockets and con artists.

An airport attack gives a lot of bang for buck, even an amateur effort is likely to succeed to some degree, and can be undertaken easily at short notice with little planning involved and not much money required. A hijack attempt is most likely to fail and requires a higher grade of terrorist to undertake it in the first place. Any illiterate nutter can be brought into the country and used in a suicide attack.

Karachi, Glasgow, Beijing, Moscow, Madrid, Brussels and now Istanbul.

Are travellers safe? From Istanbul to Glasgow and Brussels - 10 airport attacks that shook the world - Mirror Online

[paulc]

Metro Man,

that mght be the case at Terminals 1 & 2 at Manila but not at Terminal 3 where meeters and greeters are allowed into the terminal.

[Metro man]

Yes, I was referring to terminal 1. In the Philippines expect inconsistency.

[RexBanner]

Originally Posted by Metro man

Now that enhanced security has made hijacking an aircraft extremely difficult, a quick, cheap and simple alternative is to attack the airport instead. The number of potential casualties is greater, the level of publicity is similar and the disruption is longer lasting and costlier.

Presumably you were in cryogenic stasis during the attacks of September 11th 2001 and have only recently been awakened. 3000 people died, the attack itself was highly spectacular, media coverage was wall to wall and saturated for weeks afterwards and you couldn't imagine a longer lasting and costlier clean up than the recovery operation at Ground Zero.

I take the point that it's easier to do, absolutely correct but let's not go around making crazy claims that the effects are somewhat comparable. They're not whatsoever.

[ExGrunt]

Having had a little COunter INsurgency experience, I have to say that I thought, in the circumstances, the Turkish Authorities did a reasonable job in closing down this attack. It could have been much worse.

EG

[Metro man]

Not every hijacker wants to fly into a building, release of imprisoned comrads, ransom money or political concessions such as troop withdrawals are also on the agenda. With increased security all round, another 11/09/2001 is highly unlikely ever to occur again. A hole was found, full advantage was taken, they succeeded and the stable door was bolted afterwards.

An airport terminal is a soft target which can be attacked by lunatics who would be unable to get through security to board an airliner but who can stroll through the door into the check in area unnoticed, until they open fire.

[thcrozier]

I miss the days when hijackings were used primarily for trips to Cuba.

[ExGrunt]

I miss the days when hijackings were used primarily for trips to Cuba.

BTW this type of run, gun & bnag type attack has a longer history than most people realise:
CF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lod_Airport_massacre

EG