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

Honey Trap

Old 15th Sep 2002, 02:40
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The difficulty with this argument is that it suggests the media should have no right to 'interfere' in this particular industry.

Sometimes media behaviour in aviation matters is at best meaningless and at worst counterproductive.

But it is important fundamentally.

There are of course states where 'media problems' are 'contained'. I doubt their safety records make much of an advert for the control of criticism.
paulo is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2002, 09:00
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As I recall the Lockabie relitive wasn't prosecuted. Procecution would have looked vindictive and not really been in the public interest. I think the same excuse goes for the press when they do thier smuggling attempts. Although taking a green plastic toy gun through BAA security isn't really an offence in any event. The idea being to show that something that looks like a gun can get through security.
As far as the UK is concerned, I can't comment on the rest of the world, the person asking another to take something through security doesn't commit an offence. Odd I know, but I went through this at Heathrow some 10 years ago, after getting out the Aviation Security Act and the newer Aviation and Maratime Security Acts niether myself or my inspector could find any offence we could charge someone with after a similar incident. Of course the person taking a package through, if he doesn't admit the package isn't his at the security questions stage does commit an offence.
bjcc is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2002, 12:57
  #23 (permalink)  

Jet Blast Rat
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 50
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
PAXBoy

The puny locks used on cases are actually of a lot of use. I would never go through some countries' airports without one. They do not prevent entry, they are too easily broken, however they do indicate that the luggage has been tampered with. They same applies to the lockable rucksack netting.

Of course this is much more likely to save you from drugs charges than a bomb: a typical trick in some far-Eastern and former-Soviet states is for someone to plant drugs in a person's checked luggage. This could be for one of two reasons. Either they wait for you to clear customs, unaware that you are a mule, then steal your luggage or else the customs are tipped off about you, and in the fuss as you are arrested their mule slips through. Either way in some countries you could be facing a long time in a nasty gaol.

Never let your baggage out of sight unless it is locked. If the lock is brocken, immediately inform some form of security personnel, before opening it! Say you are concerned about a bomb, this will get it dealt with at a higher level, involving more people than drugs, reducing the chances of anyone corrupt trying to pin something on you.

BJCC

Do you know if most of the imitation guns used in these 'tests' are plastic? If so then the reporters are faking the whole setup. There is only one gun that does not show up in a metal detector (a ceramic Glock), and that will show up on X-Ray so has to be carried on the person, so will easily be found on a search. It is an extremely expensive gun which is difficult to acquire. As far as I am aware it has never been implicated in a hijacking.
Send Clowns is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2002, 15:11
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: South East UK
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There is only one gun that does not show up in a metal detector (a ceramic Glock)
This is, as far as I know, utter claptrap.

I don't know where Bruce Willis gets his information (because this stuff is almost certainly ripped off from one of the Die Hard movies and not from any authentic source) but there is no 'ceramic Glock'.

Glock pistols have components made of polymer (perhaps Mr Willis got his 'polymer' mixed up with 'porcelain' and no-one noticed) but much of the gun is steel and would easily be detected on airport X-ray.

So yes, a 'ceramic Glock' would be very difficult to acquire because it doesn't even exist. It's this kind of nonsense which then turns up in tabloids and gets taken as fact by the public.
Kalium Chloride is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2002, 16:14
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: denmark/BLL/KRP
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What are the consequences of a correct answer!

Another case where the answer to the "Could anyone of interfered with your bag since it was packed?"-question would have to be yes, is when transfering from one flight to another where your bags are not checked through:
IE A routing fromsomewhere-STN with Ryan Air to be followed by STN-somewhereelse by same company.

Flying that route you would have to answer Yes to the question!(the bag will have been out of your sight for hours in the hands of who knows!)
Then what happens? Do you unpack your bag in front of the check-in-guy/gal? Extra security check????
apioca is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2002, 17:11
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Perhaps I should explain, the incident I am talking about was a couple of weeks ago, when some genius from the BBC program South Today took a childs toy, painted green and shaped llike and the size of an automatic pistol. It was contained the orginal packaging inside a carry on bag. It either did not show up on the x ray or was missed by the searcher, head of BAA security made the usual excuses, (mind you he was full of excuses while he was in charge of heathrow police station). However the point I was making was it would be difficult to prove an offence against the reporter, as possession of a kids toy is not illegal, no matter that his intention was to prove secuirity inadeqate.
As regards to clock pistols, I know very little but they did set off the metal detectors.
bjcc is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2002, 20:11
  #27 (permalink)  

Jet Blast Rat
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 50
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I bow to superior Knowledge KC, a polymer gun. I seem now to recall a similar description, but I am no small arms expert. I realised the gun also contained metallic parts. However I suspect at times they are not detected by metal detectors, as the sensitivity certainly used to be set so that they were not set off by keys - though I notice in recent years they are more sensitive. In fact I went through two airports only in March with someone with a fair amount of metal embedded in her person and do not remember the metal detector going off (did it, if you are reading this?).

BJCC

I realised your point, and agree. I was simply curious.

In the case you mentioned I would suggest it would indicate no security breach. The lightweight plastic of a toy gun certainly woulod not show up on an X-Ray. If found in a search the weight would indicate it was not dangerous. Maybe a very minor security lapse if it was overlooked in a search (could be used to frighten people, though in the current climate not to hijack, as some people would risk their lives to stop a hijack now) but nothing in any way newsworthy
Send Clowns is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2002, 20:47
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: South East UK
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Modern metal detectors can be programmed to ignore common alloys in coins, etc, to cut down on nuisance alarms. The more advanced ones are also 'zoned' which means that several independent detectors are used to scan the head area, shoulders, chest, torso and so on. This means that a lot of small, randomly-distributed items of metal don't add up to a false "large item" signal.

Incidentally, Glock might not build ceramic guns but it's interesting that there's at least one airport metal detector company which highlights the fact that it can detect the Glock 17 - the implication being that this weapon is more difficult to pinpoint. I don't know whether that's a fact or whether it's using the false rumours about the Glock as a marketing tool.
Kalium Chloride is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2002, 02:43
  #29 (permalink)  
Everything is under control.
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I suggest all airlines at the airport suspend advertising on the "journalists" station.

Regarding luggage, luggage handlers have been found to have keys to common cheap luggage locks (which are all the same). In addition, the hasps on those and some of the combination locks can be bent open and closed by hand, or using pliers.

Instead of standard locks I now use self-locking wiring ties, such as these . . .

http://www.1stcableties.com/

Can be bought in the electric section of hardware stores. Slip one through where the lock would go and zip it tight. It cannot be easily removed without cutting (which I do with small nail clippers I keep in an outside luggage pocket).
Eboy is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2002, 09:17
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Red face

Aaargh, Eboy!

Don't you know nail clippers are a banned item? You could potentially use them as an item of aggression against them aircraft crew. At least, that's what all the cabin and flight crew who have had their nail clippers confiscated have been told.
Pandora is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2002, 17:26
  #31 (permalink)  
Everything is under control.
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I put the nail clippers in an unlocked pocket on the checked luggage. Anyway, a few months ago nail clippers were allowed by the TSA, at least for the U.S. Safety razors too. Now I can shave when I go to Asia again.

I checked the latest TSA list to make sure . . .

http://www.tsa.dot.gov/trav_consumer...ted_items.shtm

I checked the prohibited list also . . .

http://www.tsa.dot.gov/trav_consumer..._prohibit.shtm

I think this list is somewhat misleading in that it is items "that will not be allowed through the security checkpoint" and "items prohibited in aircraft cabins." The implication is you can check this stuff. I guess that is where the FAA and airline rules take over. But, I think the TSA should rewrite this misleading page -- the ill- and/or uninformed could get the wrong idea. They should also hire a graphic artist to redo those cheesy gold badges and patches.

Last edited by Eboy; 16th Sep 2002 at 17:32.
Eboy is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2002, 12:34
  #32 (permalink)  
Final 3 Greens
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Went through CRL last with with the Ryans and security stopped me and insisted that I empty my brifecase.

When they couldn't find anything, they showed me the screen image and a lose AA battery (at a slight angle) looked like a small penkife. Once they were shown the battery, all was okay.

As I was repacking the bag, I commented that it was reassuring to see their diligence, they said "yes, well you might have been a some smart ass journalist trying to make us look like fools."

My first reaction was irritation, as these people should be looking after our safety, not engaging in CYA, but on reflection perhaps journalists do play a valuable role by keeping the security guys on their toes.
 
Old 17th Sep 2002, 13:29
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: behind the lens
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I consider that in all walks of life you will find the good, bad and indifferent - why should journalists be any different?

Why are they allowed to "get away" with testing airport security?
My point is that said Journalist is able to "test" and if caught, turn round and admit to being what he / she is.........what happens when you get the journalist that's turned bad or been a mole??
He /she gets on plane and could do the business.

Please - start treating them like anyone else who tries to break the law.
sharpshot is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2002, 13:40
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You could ask yourself whether you'd prefer that the person who discovers that you can sneak through slack security is a reporter or someone prepared to kill another 3000 people.
Konkordski is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2002, 21:10
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Philadelphia (UK expat)
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hmm, looking at the "prohibited item" list from the TSA web site, I notice the inclusion of automatic weapons and hand grenades, but the omission of RPG launchers, AMRAAM missiles and M-1 Abrams Tanks. Maybe someone should bring this to their attention?
Covenant is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2002, 21:37
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There is only one gun that does not show up in a metal detector (a ceramic Glock), and that will show up on X-Ray so has to be carried on the person, so will easily be found on a search. It is an extremely expensive gun which is difficult to acquire. As far as I am aware it has never been implicated in a hijacking.
Could you point to a reference to this mythical gun?

I have two Glocks (Glock 17 -- 9mm, and Glock 23 -- .40 S&W). There's no ceramic in them. The frame itself is polymer (aka plastic), but the action parts within the frame are steel, as are the rails which hold the slide. The slide is steel, as is recoil spring. The guide rod is plastic. The magazines are plastic, but have steel liners. The barrel is, of course, steel as well. The cartridges, of course, are made up of brass cases and lead projectiles (usually jacketed with copper).

The plastic used in the Glock frame is dense enough that it shows up quite well in X-rays. And the steel in the slide, barrel, etc. would set off the metal detector.

While I've heard people claim that there are undetectable ceramic guns, no one has ever coughed up any evidence of one and they certainly aren't for sale here in the states. I've come to believe that they exist only in the Tom Clancy novels and the like.

And, of course, Glock is not the only manufacturer to make handguns with plastic frames, though they may well have been the first. Heckler-Koch, Smith & Wesson, Walther, Kahr, etc. all offer plastic-framed guns.

OFBSLF
OFBSLF is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2002, 22:02
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: South East UK
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OFBSLF,

Think you'll find we discounted the "ceramic" gun earlier in this thread...
Kalium Chloride is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2002, 09:33
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The "Glockenspiel" is nice, but one can imagine that a college-level mischief-maker trained in any of four or five technical disciplines could fairly easily make from scratch a 1500+ fps one- or two- or three-shot with nary a bit of metal or ceramic.

If you accept that the troublemakers are "crazy" from our pov to begin, then it is folly to assume conventional behavior will follow.

There's no easy here...for us.

Last edited by arcniz; 18th Sep 2002 at 23:41.
arcniz is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


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.