Airport Security

[Danny]

Straw Poll

As crew or as a passenger do you think airport security is good enough?

This is a simple straw poll and not intended to open another debate. You must be registered and logged in to vote and is intended for demonstration purposes only.

[saudipc-9]

Fish,
I'm with you 100%.
The deterent needs to be an the ground and well before we ever reach the aircraft! This runs into the other debate over firearms on aircraft. We shouldn't need to arm pilots if we had proper security!

[EyesToTheSkies]

"Sorry" said the security man, "I have to do this properly today. My guvnor's here conducting a check...."

It brings to mind a quote from Henry Ford....

"Quality is doing it right when no-one is looking".

[boofhead]

It depresses me to see those working or interested in aviation buying into the cobblers fed to us by the governments responsible for "security" at airports. Nothing they have done or are doing is going to make any difference to security, see the thread below about the attempted hijacking in Brazil for example. Treating honest passengers and crew as criminals does nothing but upset and hassle us, causing many to avoid flying, and therefore doing severe damage to the airlines. Which is us!
There are sensible steps that can be taken, but the authorities refuse to do them. The aim of the new game is empire building, pure and simple.
Look at what is being done in the US with the new Xray machines in the airport lobbies. Total waste of time, the job can be done much better and without shutting down the airports, which is likely if the Dec 31 deadline is not relaxed. But someone in control has an agenda most likely based on some sort of personal interest, and so the juggernaut rolls on.
In Aus, if you have a laptop you must send it through security with the battery removed and separate. What possible benefit is this giving the security staff? How many laptops have hijacked an airplane? I suspect the same number as have been hijacked by nailfiles...None!
Also in Aus, I now have to show my passport when traveling on duty and wearing an ID card and uniform, not only on arrival, but on departure as well. "What's this for," I asked last week, "Are you doing this for the tax man?"
"No, Mate, it is just to make a photo record." What, does he think I am as stupid as I look?
And how many hijackers have been stopped by security? None, because they are at least as smart as me and I know a dozen ways to beat the system, so why should they be deterred? A bottle of gas (as in Brazil) will not be detected, and a determined hijacker does not even need that; a threat is enough. The shoe bomber was not stopped, even though he was denied boarding once, and the Sep 11 hijackers were not stopped, even though they were singled out for extra security. But I am stopped, every time, because I am flying on a staff ticket.
For years we were asked "Have you packed your own bag, and have you had control of it since?" and we answered as we were expected to, knowing all along how stupid the questions were. Why don't they just ask us if we intend to hijack the airplane and take our word, as they did for so many years before?
And how many of those who have had guns or knives taken from them at security (about half of those actually carried, some say) were subsequently charged with a serious crime such as attempted hijacking? None! How many of the guns and knives that escape detection are used for crimes on airplanes? None!
How can anyone support this insanity?
What makes me most disgusted is the inference that if we give over our rights and freedoms to these incompetent fools we will get safety in return. The next time there is a criminal act on an airplane the security staff who were on duty, and the government that allows them to be there, should be held responsible and if anyone is killed they should all go to jail.
...yeah, sure.

[ComJam]

Paris

Short story:

Paris CDG last year.

Arrived CDG in preparation for annual sim course to discover that KLM had lost my bag (shock!). Baggage said it would arrive first flight the next day and that I should pitch up at the Arrival baggage office, ie on the "wrong" side of customs.

Hmmm says I, how do I do that when coming from land rather than air-side? "Oh that's OK", i'm assured, "just use the staff door behind the customs desk, if anyone challenges you show them your pass it'll be ok." Really?

And yes it was, nobody actually even questioned why this unidentified guy in civvies was entering the Airside part of the terminal, effectively "behind" ALL security, metal detectors, check-in etc

To say i was surprised would be an understatement and I'm not convinced it's any better now....

Cheers

[whatshouldiuse]

Good Enough for what..

To stop determined terroists, absolutely not. To stop people who have had too much to drink or leave a hunting knive in their carry-on, absolutely.

Do I feel more comfortable since September 11th? No.

Will this feeling change? Probably not.


Living in the N.E. USA, somebody asked me a couple of weeks ago, why they don't search people getting on the Commuter Trains. I didn't have an answer then and still don't. Remember these babies carry around 700+ people at a crack going right into the heart of NY. I guess if somebody is truly determined, they'll find a way.

Thanks

Andy

[luchtzak]

Hi all,

as a flight attendant I can say that in all European airports security has been very strict nowadays. Maybe their are 2 or 3 airports who allow you to cross the scanner and -even if you bleeped- you can go further. That's only for flightcrew!

Maybe I can say that even with a plastic economy-class knife you can cut somebody's nek. Did you allready tried to cut a lemon with a plastic knife ? peace of cake....

Conclusion: even the security-control is very strict, I believe that their exist 1001 other ways to attack somebody inflight! Sad but true.....

greetings,

luchtzak
www.luchtzak.be

[El Grifo]

Luchtzak

I was stopped at NCL England the other day trying to board with a nailclipper with a 4.5 cm nailfile attached. They said snap off the nailfile, or forfeit the clipper. No Problem !!

However, I reckon if I was planning to do mischief on the aircraft, I would have went for one of the hundreds of lethal glass bottles happily carried on by the passengers, or the gallons of imflammable liquid contained therin.

[Localiser Green]

I found it rather amusing heading off to Puerto Vallarta last month for my partner's nail file being confiscated at security and eating our meals with plastic cutlery, only to be served Smirnoff Ice and wine with our meals in reasonably-sized glass bottles

There is only so far you can take it I agree, and stopping these people getting on the plane in the first place must be the issue, but confiscating nail files and nail clippers is just a bit silly IMO.

[N380UA]

It all depends of what airport you’re talking about. A determined person will undoubtedly be able to bring something on board one way or another! The security in general is good and in some place had been made even better, I don’t even wanna know how many nail clippers, and small pocket knifes had be confiscated thus far (lol). I also believe that security in the US today is still worse that the security in central Europe pre 9/11. Rather, the hype has been jacked up and the sense for reality has gone out the window. Some have mentioned that they don’t feel secure anymore and probably never really will. I on the other hand feel no less secure today then pre 9/11.
A terrorist will not be deterred by plastic cutlery in the cabin, locked cockpit doors, or heavily armed, brainless (sorry) junior high dropouts, pot smoking (sorry again) security guards on our airports.
Perhaps as a reminder; Terrorism is an act of war, war is a continuation of politics where diplomacy has failed. Hence fighting terrorism should not be left up to the aviation industry, but must be conducted by our governments.
Of course, any security at all must be applied equally, be it PAX or crew, and for that matter any other person who has access to an AC. And while we’re at it, what about ATC? Couldn’t some loonies take control of the tower and start some major illsh!t; especially in IMC?
So where does it start and where does it end?

[GS-Alpha]

"It all depends of what airport you’re talking about"

If security is low at any airports, it is low everywhere. Once you have got airside at the weakest airport, you are airside in any airport.

[N380UA]

GS-Alpha

How is that? Transfer PAX has to recheck if that’s what you mean? If you have a security problem in XYZ, who does that influence the security in ZYX?

Besides, that’s my point in first place. Looking at security in Abidjan and security in Frankfurt, one will find that it’s incomparable.

So in answering Danny’s question “Is airport security enough?” I’m asking as to what AD he would be referring to.

Cheers

[divingduck]

The Middle East

Security here in the ME has always been of a pretty high standard.
Even after being scanned a few times getting to Dubai, you are still screened prior to leaving/transitting and then again at the gate boarding the next leg.

So hereabouts, yes, security, on the ground is good enough.

[daidalos]

divingduck
With all due respect, all this, in Dubai is after the hand grenade in the coca-cola and the high jacking of the Air India (If I remember correctly). There will be always a way to pass insecure items in an airport. Full proof security? Not yet. Maybe in a few years but not now.
Unfortunately. Have to keep trying though...

[RealFish]

I travelled from Man to Gib via Lgw earlier this year and was in a queue of half a dozen or more waiting for hand baggage to be scanned.

Not once in that time did the woman operating the equipment look at her screen. She was busy talking to colleagues standing behind her, chatting about the previous night's television.

This is my second such experience at Man.

[Basil]

N380UA
‘fighting terrorism - - - must be conducted by our governments’
Last time in the US, guard told me that security was being taken over by Federal Authority.

RealFish
Aahh, MAN – some sections of the airport are pervaded by an attitude problem reminiscent of the 50s/60s in the UK

[broadreach]

Overall, yes, security has improved and even if it's a bit flaky at some airports it's much more of a deterrent than was the case prior to 11 Sept.

So the opportunity cost for a terrorist act involving aircraft is now much higher and I suspect the focus of terrorist groups will have moved to other areas; whatshouldiuse mentioned commuter trains. And of course ports - just imagine the damage a nuclear device on board a ship could do if detonated entering a large port. The US are tackling that one now, at immense cost.

[low n' slow]

"Locks are for the honest" as we say in sweden.
What we mean by this is that airport security is to make the opertunist stay on the right side of the law. Those who are determined to highjack a plane will succede in doing this, security or no security!

I feel that all the added security is only to make things "look as if somethings being done to improve the situation". And it is all very contradictory to the fact that our industry is trying to become more effective! This show is simply working against growth.

If airport security is to do any good at all this would mean alterations to the extent that people most probably would find some other way to travel (domestic flights...). I mean fo example: Even tighter screenings and more limitations on what is allowed to bring onboard, no café's on airside, no shops on airside, security around the baggage belt, secuity in and around the gates, more security on the apron and perhaps even scanner just before entering the aircraft. It would be impossible both economically and physically to implemet these changes. If the job can't be done completely, it better not be done at all!

And, working as a caterer at ARN, I know pretty much what kind of stuff is onboard the aircraft that we work on and I can say that a lot of these items can be used to aid a highjack. Cockpit cuttlery for example... (usually metal).

best regards/lns

[niknak]

Airport security starts a long way before the departure gate, and I'm a bit suprised that a seasoned professional like Danny is prepared to treat the issue in the same way that a tabloid journalist would.

Dont forget that the provision of "front line" security screeners, is the last part of a very intricate process, a fact that Danny should be very well aware of.
Their major function is to prevent the people who may decide as a last resort, taking something on board an aeroplane, which may be used in acts of violence or terrorism.
They only follow orders from their employers, who follow orders from the UK TRANSEC or the appropriate authority.
Intelligence is the major source of prevention of terrorism, and it will frequently go unreported because either it is not newsworthy, or the news is not released because it's part of a bigger operation.

By all means bicker about having your nail clippers taken away from you, (when big signs before check - in tell you otherwise), but save your real gripes for when your plane is hijacked foloowing a failure of UK/European/US security procedures.

[Puritan]

niknak – you’re either having a laugh or what you’ve written above is a wind-up, right ?!

I.e. w.r.t : Dont forget that the provision of "front line" security screeners, is the last part of a very intricate process.

Oh no it’s not.

And w.r.t : They only follow orders from their employers, who follow orders from the UK TRANSEC or the appropriate authority.

That’s as in “Ve ver only following ze orders !”, apart from which I suggest that you look up the meaning of words ‘appropriate authority’, e.g. I imagine that you’re implying that Government Mandarins are sufficiently ‘expert’ and well briefed w.r.t. what we do as to be able to enforce their self-invented policies upon us ?

If so, then please be so kind as to rearrange these words, ‘could not p1ss they a organise in brewery up’ - actually the flip-side of all this is that there follows from it a pervasive belief ( in our present Government ) that the transport industry ( and the CAA ) are too inept as to be able to put in place things which might actually work and / or be of benefit, and as such only the Government can be trusted to do a good job and know what's best for us !

E.g. Let’s have a look at recent edict from these self-assumed ‘authorities’ that our present flightdeck doors must be replaced ( at vast expense ) with ones that are armoured to a ballistic-level ( i.e. capable of not being broken down and also of resisting being shot-through ).

Now I know for a fact that even the CAA think it’s not a worthwhile move but they’ve been told to ‘follow ze orders !’.

I.e. The fact that a terrorist armed with a gun can’t shoot you through the flightdeck door ( coz it’s armoured ) will not prevent the said same terrorist from spraying the flightdeck with bullets from the forward toilet and / or galley – because these areas, adjacent to the newly armoured door, are NOT armoured – so is it me, or is this just plain stupid logic that’s being applied here by the Mandarins ?!

Nb. Their ( the authorities ) real need here is to be seen to be doing something ( in the eyes of the voters ), rather than that ‘something’ actually being properly thought through and / or of any value.

W.r.t : Intelligence is the major source of prevention of terrorism, and it will frequently go unreported because either it is not newsworthy, or the news is not released because it's part of a bigger operation.

What you’re are suggesting is that a level of cooperation and integration exists between the security services, which in fact it does not !

I.e. From my knowledge of it, the security services are riddled with self-serving and ( unsurprisingly ) secretive types who’re loath to disseminate information / data which they see as belonging only to them ( and this even after 911 ). As they say, “It’s a need to know basis, and nobody else needs to know !” And is it any wonder ? E.g. the histories our security services were awash with loathing and discrimination ( as per comments by Sir David Petrie ), and still are ( imho ).

And certainly the mechanism by which information is promulgated between the various agencies is more by accident than design – i.e. there is NO formalised system for doing this.

E.g. You’d be fooling yourself if you think that MI6 feel that they should tell Special Branch ( and vice versa ) about covert operations which might be targeting terrorists albeit that both services are maybe watching the same people. Indeed one would imagine that the way that seems to work best is when MI6 types manage to leave their laptops in the back of London taxis for the police to find !

Nb. For some background w.r.t some of the above, see also:

BBC - Blair rebuked over security services
BBC - Second spy loses laptop
BBC - Spy chief doubted 'incompetent' police

W.r.t. : By all means bicker about having your nail clippers taken away from you, (when big signs before check - in tell you otherwise), but save your real gripes for when your plane is hijacked foloowing a failure of UK/European/US security procedures.

Uhm, might I suggest that you’re obviously not seeing the bigger operation – I would be the first ( well, maybe not ) to hand over implements which might be used for acts of violence on-board ( say, anybody know the last time somebody used a pair of nail-clippers to perpetrate an act of air-piracy ? ) but let’s have a level playing-field shall we ?

I.e. Across many EU and other worldwide airports it’s possible to be searched / scanned, but then go airside and then purchase all manner of items that one might subsequently use in an aggressive manner ( e.g. Swiss arms knives, cutlery gift sets, glass bottles full of highly flammable spirits, etc… ), indeed one airline I recently flew with has very nice manicure sets for sale as part their in-flight sales stock ( complete with nail clippers & files ! ) – so as they say, ‘go figure ?!’

So in summary, what we've got are security forces that are loath to cooperate with each other, government departments issuing poorly researched edicts all done in the name of improved security ( but where in reality it’s purely ‘spin’ in order to be 'seen' to be doing something ). In the meantime airlines are having to spend vast amounts to comply with the new security policies, plus many of the front-line airline folks realise that it’s all a crock of ****, to say nothing that we’re all paying for it one way or another - so oh what a waste of money, energies, and time !

Ps. And don’t even start me on the so called ‘locked flight deck door’ policy !