Airport Security- An Inside view
How reassuring that responsible professionals feel that the emphasis on security is 'absolute nonsense'!!!
Boofhead you must be in dreamland if you think that security in the US is as tight as in the UK and some European states. It certainly doesn't seem to be way over the top to those of us used to UK standards over the last 10 years. There have been some very successful seizures by security which haven't been made public so as not to cause alarm. Those who need to know have been fully informed.
Sure people lie on their references, just the same as they do on their tax returns. The fact is it is getting more difficult to get away with the deceit.
Unless I am mistaken Aircrew have the same financial and personal pressures as we lesser mortals. These pressures could result in them taking a one-off payment to assist a person out to create trouble. I would feel very aggrieved if they were ever exempted from the Security checks. To the postee who pleaded that they would never stoop so low, great news, but unfortunately there might be others who would, so go through the checks and make life more difficult for the bad sheep.
Until we have politicians and 'freedom fighters' who accept the power of peaceful negotiation we will continue to require enhanced security because we work in a 'spectacular' industry.
Boofhead you must be in dreamland if you think that security in the US is as tight as in the UK and some European states. It certainly doesn't seem to be way over the top to those of us used to UK standards over the last 10 years. There have been some very successful seizures by security which haven't been made public so as not to cause alarm. Those who need to know have been fully informed.
Sure people lie on their references, just the same as they do on their tax returns. The fact is it is getting more difficult to get away with the deceit.
Unless I am mistaken Aircrew have the same financial and personal pressures as we lesser mortals. These pressures could result in them taking a one-off payment to assist a person out to create trouble. I would feel very aggrieved if they were ever exempted from the Security checks. To the postee who pleaded that they would never stoop so low, great news, but unfortunately there might be others who would, so go through the checks and make life more difficult for the bad sheep.
Until we have politicians and 'freedom fighters' who accept the power of peaceful negotiation we will continue to require enhanced security because we work in a 'spectacular' industry.
More on the Airport Security Theme
Aeropig 1, thanks for your posting, I agree totally with your content and moreover the tone of your comments, thanks again.
Like one or two others, it was most definitely not my intention or wish to stir things up with my first posting on this subject, but I still stand by my comments made there. In particular
I continue to assert that, the security system is only as strong as the weakest link and once we start granting exemptions, where will it stop. I would suggest that I could call at my local theatrical outfitters and be kitted out as a police officer, just like I could an airline pilot. OK getting a vaild ID and getting through the check point would be another matter.
I do however also fully accept that all of us will have strong
and varying views on this most important subject, but by using this forum for discussion, we may be able to improve the situation.
On the question of security clearance and vetting of personnel, all I would comment is... When I wore a blue uniform to do my aviating I was security cleared to fly HM the Q (and did now and then) as well as other passengers up to and including the householder at no 10 as well as military VIPs etc. All this, apart from being a superb tour of duty to finish my military flying career, afforded me absolutely nothing in the way of security brownie points when I started civil flying and I never expected it to do so of course.
My point is that, I have seen sensible and thorough security very professionaly carried out on many ocassions mainly in the military and we need the same highly trained professional approach in the civil sector as well, alas at present I think we have some way to go, despite the best efforts of many personnel.
Like one or two others, it was most definitely not my intention or wish to stir things up with my first posting on this subject, but I still stand by my comments made there. In particular
I continue to assert that, the security system is only as strong as the weakest link and once we start granting exemptions, where will it stop. I would suggest that I could call at my local theatrical outfitters and be kitted out as a police officer, just like I could an airline pilot. OK getting a vaild ID and getting through the check point would be another matter.
I do however also fully accept that all of us will have strong
and varying views on this most important subject, but by using this forum for discussion, we may be able to improve the situation.
On the question of security clearance and vetting of personnel, all I would comment is... When I wore a blue uniform to do my aviating I was security cleared to fly HM the Q (and did now and then) as well as other passengers up to and including the householder at no 10 as well as military VIPs etc. All this, apart from being a superb tour of duty to finish my military flying career, afforded me absolutely nothing in the way of security brownie points when I started civil flying and I never expected it to do so of course.
My point is that, I have seen sensible and thorough security very professionaly carried out on many ocassions mainly in the military and we need the same highly trained professional approach in the civil sector as well, alas at present I think we have some way to go, despite the best efforts of many personnel.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boofhead, you say that most "weapons" are taken from people who aren't terrorists, and have no intention of using the "weapons" on the plane. Well, how are we supposed to know who's a terrorist or not? We don't find a prohibited item, and think, "oh, he looks okay. I'll let it go". We can't. If we find a prohibited item, we have to take it, regardless of who owns it. We can't treat people unfairly and target only a specific group..if a little old lady comes through with a pair of sharp scissors, I can't allow it. Do I think that little old lady will highjack the plane? What I think doesn't matter. I still have a job to do. I screen "powerful" people all the time..they get treated like anyone else. When we search a bag, and find a prohibited item, the focus is not letting that item on the plane, not on the owner. And we never treated crew like "criminals" ...I hear that comment sometimes, from passengers too, and I wonder why. Usually all we are doing is just searching them and their items, and they blow it all out of proportion, as though we do body cavity searches and interrogate them in a little room like they do on CSI (not our job). I often hear it from people who think I actually care what's in their bag (unless it's dangerous, I don't) and have nothing better to do than call everyone I know and tell them so-and-so has a pack of condoms in their purse as soon as the plane leaves. We don't search crews anymore, but we did it because we were required to, not because we actually "wanted" to. But we have to search..and we're not the only ones...concerts and award shows search people too. We're only trying to look out for passengers, AND crew, and the plane, not treat people as criminals. However, if I am lax on any particular passenger and am caught, I lose my job. Simple as that. That explains why I treat everybody equally, which is what we're supposed to do anyway. I'm not risking my sole source of income for anybody.
Pax, I agree, that security is only as good as the weakest link, and that includes Canadian airports. Hopefully things will improve as a government crown corporation takes over from the airlines. We have undergone further training and pay increases, hopefully that will "motivate" some of us.
As for security being imperfect, what is perfect these days? You can do everything possible to protect people, it isn't always going to work. You can fix roads to make them safer, impose speed limits and have police patrolling the roads, but there will always be some idiot driving too fast, driving drunk, and jumping in front of you when they're not looking where they're going. You can register guns, teach gun safety classes, but there'll always be someone who leaves a gun where a child can reach it. Nothing is 100% perfect.
Pax, I agree, that security is only as good as the weakest link, and that includes Canadian airports. Hopefully things will improve as a government crown corporation takes over from the airlines. We have undergone further training and pay increases, hopefully that will "motivate" some of us.
As for security being imperfect, what is perfect these days? You can do everything possible to protect people, it isn't always going to work. You can fix roads to make them safer, impose speed limits and have police patrolling the roads, but there will always be some idiot driving too fast, driving drunk, and jumping in front of you when they're not looking where they're going. You can register guns, teach gun safety classes, but there'll always be someone who leaves a gun where a child can reach it. Nothing is 100% perfect.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought I spelled it out pretty clearly, but evidently not. Maybe I will try again...
Terrorists can take over an airplane using everyday items that will not be confiscated at security. They will not carry guns or knives etc because they know there is a good chance of them being taken away. On 9/11 for example the crims used boxcutters that were legal for carriage at the time. In the future they will use other items that are not banned. If you are in security you will know what I mean.
This means that even if every gun and every knife and every nailfile is stopped at the security point it will not prevent a terrorist from attacking the airplane once it is in the air. I gave several examples of this, with one example, in Algeria, of the airplane almost being taken when a group of men broke into the flight deck and beat up the pilots using only their fists. If they had closed the flight deck door behind them they would have been successful, but as it was the cabin crew and pax managed to stop them.
Should security be abandoned then, as useless? No, of course not, but the standard used in most parts of the world is quite satisfactory. Unlike in the US, they do not find it necessary to single out aircrew for special treatment; everybody gets the same or if they have a good identity check going aircrew get preferential treatment, not because aircrew are 'special' but because holding up the crew will delay the flights. There is no "random" searching, and only if you set off the detector or have something suspicious in your carry on would you attract attention. Or if you are acting weird. In this way security is not a bottleneck or something to be feared. It works, but at the same time it is not 100 percent. It cannot be that, ever (the only weapon used for an attempted hijack recently was a pocket knife and that was on an El Al flight, supposedly the safest in the world with the most stringent security).
If you are on the receiving end it sure feels like you are being treated like a criminal, with no rights. Even on the road you are entitled to respect from the police if they pull you over, but when you try to get on an airplane you are considered to have given up all rights to privacy and respect, and why should I have to be subject to this? I am not a criminal, and neither are the almost 100 percent of others who want to fly. So there are some bad guys out there, why not concentrate on them? If you cannot identify them, work out how to do that, without getting in my face. Passenger loads in the US are down 15-20 percent, not because of a fear of flying, but because of the way they are treated at the airports.
And when you know that ONLY passengers and crew are subject to security, with the thousands of airport workers free to come and go as they please, you know that the authorities have set up a system that is designed to APPEAR effective, but is almost worthless.
Here's some proof for you to ponder. There have not been any bombings of airplanes in the US since 1962, yet the govt made a real effort to get bomb scanning xray machines installed at all airports before Dec 31 last year, despite there being no really effective machines available. The ones they use have a 20-30 percent failure rate (false positive). Imagine the cost, and who got the kick back?
Go look at how they work. Beside every machine, usually set up in the concourse, with thousands of passengers milling about, is a table where the bags that fail ( a lot of them) are manually searched by someone with a pair of rubber gloves. Remember, he is searching for a bomb. If there was a bomb there, how would it be set off? That's right, by handling it! This is the same airport that will evacuate a whole terminal for hours if a bullet is found on the floor, or a scanner found to be unplugged, yet they will allow a man with no explosives training fiddle and manhandle the contents of your bag (and since all bags must be left unlocked the owner might not even be there...does this suggest anything?). When he sets off the bomb that the machine has told him is likely to be in the bag, thousands will be in the blast area.
So why would the govt allow this insanity? Simple, they know there is no bomb. Again, the whole setup is for show. And incidentally to grow government and take away peoples' rights, which was the main intent in the first place.
None of us are against effective and reasonable security, just knee jerk stupidity. You may feel you are "just doing your job", but if that job is ineffective and is destroying the whole airline industry, don't expect those of us who have to put up with it to applaud you.
Terrorists can take over an airplane using everyday items that will not be confiscated at security. They will not carry guns or knives etc because they know there is a good chance of them being taken away. On 9/11 for example the crims used boxcutters that were legal for carriage at the time. In the future they will use other items that are not banned. If you are in security you will know what I mean.
This means that even if every gun and every knife and every nailfile is stopped at the security point it will not prevent a terrorist from attacking the airplane once it is in the air. I gave several examples of this, with one example, in Algeria, of the airplane almost being taken when a group of men broke into the flight deck and beat up the pilots using only their fists. If they had closed the flight deck door behind them they would have been successful, but as it was the cabin crew and pax managed to stop them.
Should security be abandoned then, as useless? No, of course not, but the standard used in most parts of the world is quite satisfactory. Unlike in the US, they do not find it necessary to single out aircrew for special treatment; everybody gets the same or if they have a good identity check going aircrew get preferential treatment, not because aircrew are 'special' but because holding up the crew will delay the flights. There is no "random" searching, and only if you set off the detector or have something suspicious in your carry on would you attract attention. Or if you are acting weird. In this way security is not a bottleneck or something to be feared. It works, but at the same time it is not 100 percent. It cannot be that, ever (the only weapon used for an attempted hijack recently was a pocket knife and that was on an El Al flight, supposedly the safest in the world with the most stringent security).
If you are on the receiving end it sure feels like you are being treated like a criminal, with no rights. Even on the road you are entitled to respect from the police if they pull you over, but when you try to get on an airplane you are considered to have given up all rights to privacy and respect, and why should I have to be subject to this? I am not a criminal, and neither are the almost 100 percent of others who want to fly. So there are some bad guys out there, why not concentrate on them? If you cannot identify them, work out how to do that, without getting in my face. Passenger loads in the US are down 15-20 percent, not because of a fear of flying, but because of the way they are treated at the airports.
And when you know that ONLY passengers and crew are subject to security, with the thousands of airport workers free to come and go as they please, you know that the authorities have set up a system that is designed to APPEAR effective, but is almost worthless.
Here's some proof for you to ponder. There have not been any bombings of airplanes in the US since 1962, yet the govt made a real effort to get bomb scanning xray machines installed at all airports before Dec 31 last year, despite there being no really effective machines available. The ones they use have a 20-30 percent failure rate (false positive). Imagine the cost, and who got the kick back?
Go look at how they work. Beside every machine, usually set up in the concourse, with thousands of passengers milling about, is a table where the bags that fail ( a lot of them) are manually searched by someone with a pair of rubber gloves. Remember, he is searching for a bomb. If there was a bomb there, how would it be set off? That's right, by handling it! This is the same airport that will evacuate a whole terminal for hours if a bullet is found on the floor, or a scanner found to be unplugged, yet they will allow a man with no explosives training fiddle and manhandle the contents of your bag (and since all bags must be left unlocked the owner might not even be there...does this suggest anything?). When he sets off the bomb that the machine has told him is likely to be in the bag, thousands will be in the blast area.
So why would the govt allow this insanity? Simple, they know there is no bomb. Again, the whole setup is for show. And incidentally to grow government and take away peoples' rights, which was the main intent in the first place.
None of us are against effective and reasonable security, just knee jerk stupidity. You may feel you are "just doing your job", but if that job is ineffective and is destroying the whole airline industry, don't expect those of us who have to put up with it to applaud you.
boofhead,
That's the best debunking of the airport security "myth" that I have ever read. Some may think you are being cynical but those of us who see the system at work every day know full well that a great number of the measures in place are so full of holes that they are almost worthless.
That's the best debunking of the airport security "myth" that I have ever read. Some may think you are being cynical but those of us who see the system at work every day know full well that a great number of the measures in place are so full of holes that they are almost worthless.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of years ago approaching Kuwait the CSD entered the flightdeck stating we had a Security Officer on board. He would be sitting on the flightdeck for landing as he needed to check the approach lights!
I hope he had a good view from his seat in the cabin!
I hope he had a good view from his seat in the cabin!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, Boofhead, I do respect your opinion, and can see how it makes sense. You're right, nothing, including security, is perfect. I still don't know how to spot a terrorist...I must be missing something. Maybe if we have pictures of known terrorists. It's hard to tell who means well and who doesn't. I've known people who I thought were decent and had no intentions of hurting people. They wind up murdering someone. They had everyone fooled. I can't really comment on the explosives detector, sorry, wish I could but I can't. Of course if someone wants to hurt the plane or the people, they will probably try it with something they are still allowed to take aboard. We have to draw the line somewhere...we can't take people's shoelaces, ties, pens, etc. As I said, nothing's perfect. And I have been on the receiving end of a search, I've been searched with a hand-held metal detector and I've had manual searches done on my carry-on baggage, so I know how it feels. I know 99.9% of the flying population is safe, but we can't take chances. You don't have to respect or applaud that, I don't really care. I was just trying to get in on the debate with the standpoint of someone in my occupation.
Last edited by Ook; 19th Feb 2003 at 03:31.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: formally Alamo battleground, now the crocodile with palm trees!
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Man arrested at MIA
MIAMI, Florida (AP) -- A Japanese tourist was arrested after carrying a canister of gasoline and a barbecue grill through Miami International Airport, police said.
Atsushi Ishiguro, 45, was charged Friday with creating a potential safety hazard and a violation of airport security directives, police said. He was released on $1,000 bail Monday.
Ishiguro was traveling on American Eagle Airlines from Jamaica to the Bahamas when airport security stopped him on a layover in Miami.
During a security screening, authorities questioned Ishiguro about the liquid in his 11-ounce metal canister. He told them it was gasoline.
Ishiguro was taken into custody when he refused to give up the canister. Two boxes of matches and a barbecue grill were also found in his possession.
Authorities became more suspicious after examining Ishiguro's passport which included stamps from Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe and Pakistan.
The FBI and the Immigration and Naturalization Service are reviewing his case.
Atsushi Ishiguro, 45, was charged Friday with creating a potential safety hazard and a violation of airport security directives, police said. He was released on $1,000 bail Monday.
Ishiguro was traveling on American Eagle Airlines from Jamaica to the Bahamas when airport security stopped him on a layover in Miami.
During a security screening, authorities questioned Ishiguro about the liquid in his 11-ounce metal canister. He told them it was gasoline.
Ishiguro was taken into custody when he refused to give up the canister. Two boxes of matches and a barbecue grill were also found in his possession.
Authorities became more suspicious after examining Ishiguro's passport which included stamps from Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe and Pakistan.
The FBI and the Immigration and Naturalization Service are reviewing his case.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: outstanding in the field
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I went through Geneva Airport the other day. You can still buy full sized swiss army knives in the little kiosk just before you board the aircraft (well past any security screening posts). This subject has been raised with the swiss authorities but they point blank refuse to change their policy. So if you want to take a 4" blade onto an aircraft just transit GVA!!!
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ook said:
How about well educated and highly trained (expensive) individuals who ask questions before you even get to the check-in desk. It's called profiling.
Unfortunately far too many luvvies think it is just sooooo unpolitically correct. Also, it would be so much more expensive to do it this way. But hey... as long as we can all fly cheaper who cares!
I still don't know how to spot a terrorist...I must be missing something.
Unfortunately far too many luvvies think it is just sooooo unpolitically correct.
Also, it would be so much more expensive to do it this way. But hey... as long as we can all fly cheaper who cares!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: where the money takes me
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thankyou for your imput Danny, In Jan 2000, myself and others, saw BA&BAA, ref profiling,we where told, this could not be done by private companies and also , they where looking into this matter , mmm they must still be looking, thease things do take time?. also BA were happy with the 3 questions at check-in.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SE Asia
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Profiling and the FAA
As most of you will know the US carriers and I believe all carriers flying to the US out of the UK and I would imagine many other international destinations use passenger profiling as mandated by the FAA. They use private security companies such as ADI, once part owned by BA, ICTS and Initial Aviation. Of course somewhat idiotically they assumed that internally they were safe and allowed for example passengers on a direct flight (stop on route with the same plane continuing to another destination) to leave their hand baggage on board. I was working for a US airline that allowed this and raised the issue with my management of course nothing was done. However from what I have seen profiling does seem to be very effective. The cost needn't be huge if shared between all airlines at an airport and the contract negotiated accordingly to make maximum benefit of economies of scale. Whilst I agree that in general the BAA staff are reasonably trained, leaving profiling to them would ineviatbly lead to delays since the same pressure to perform cannot be exerted on their monopoly situation as it could be on a private contractor with next year's contract to win.
On the topic of how security is performed in my view out of the UK hold baggage is sufficiently robust, why do you think they are trying to use SAM now, answer because it is tough to get a bomb on board a plane now. All pax and staff should undergo a metal archway and if required back up wand or hand search. Their bags should also be x-rayed. HOWEVER it is clearly ridiculous to take a pair of nail clippers away from a passenger or crew member, when a member of engineering staff can have an altogether lethal selection of potential weapons in his toolkit. Easily handed to a passenger post security. What we should go for is reasonable and consistent measures, since as many people have pointed out many everyday items can be used as weapons...hmmm no metal cutlery but glass, both for drinking out of on board and duty free bottles are allowed. As I have previously posted lets make it as secure as possible without resorting to futile gestures which frustrate everybody with no benefit. I believe certain control authorities should be exempt, police...always....customs...in certain situations....not sure about immigration officers though....cannot see many reasons why they would need to be exempt.
On the topic of how security is performed in my view out of the UK hold baggage is sufficiently robust, why do you think they are trying to use SAM now, answer because it is tough to get a bomb on board a plane now. All pax and staff should undergo a metal archway and if required back up wand or hand search. Their bags should also be x-rayed. HOWEVER it is clearly ridiculous to take a pair of nail clippers away from a passenger or crew member, when a member of engineering staff can have an altogether lethal selection of potential weapons in his toolkit. Easily handed to a passenger post security. What we should go for is reasonable and consistent measures, since as many people have pointed out many everyday items can be used as weapons...hmmm no metal cutlery but glass, both for drinking out of on board and duty free bottles are allowed. As I have previously posted lets make it as secure as possible without resorting to futile gestures which frustrate everybody with no benefit. I believe certain control authorities should be exempt, police...always....customs...in certain situations....not sure about immigration officers though....cannot see many reasons why they would need to be exempt.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Facts
ADI were profiling for various US airlines at LGW / LHR for the last five years. BA & BAA posed the three questions as directed by the DETR, it was a matter that they had no choice in and some years ago DETR saw no gain form profiling.
As many have already stated profiling will only identify the idiot it will and cannot eradicate airborne terrorists.
As many have already stated profiling will only identify the idiot it will and cannot eradicate airborne terrorists.
What scares me is the nutter who lit a dairy carton of inflammible fluid in a Korean subway killing over a hundred people.
It's time to tighten up the duty free.
It's time to tighten up the duty free.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyright, it is absolutely ridiculous to be able to buy a knife past the security checkpoint. I have no idea what they're thinking...
Profiling is a good idea. El Al uses it, and they're known to have the best security in the world. Of course, someone did get through with a knife..not sure if that changed their ranking or not. If they come up with it here, well, so much the better. Anything that can help security is a good thing. I'm just responding to people who seem to think I can tell just by looking at someone if they're dangerous or not. It's impossible. If you go through life judging people by the way they look, then you're the type of person defense attorneys like to have on a jury. Luckily, most people don't go by looks..otherwise, people like Ted Bundy would never have been convicted. We can, and do, look at a person's actions closely. If they act somewhat suspicious, they get a more thorough search. But, there are also people who are, and appear, nervous about flying, not because of security, but they're just afraid of being 30,000 feet above the ground. So we have to take that into consideration. Plus, people without consciences can come through screening and not exhibit any signs of nervousness, agitation, etc. It's possible, that's why people can beat polygraph tests, and they aren't admissable in court. A terrorist can fall into this category. If they come up with profiling in the future, well, I'm all for it.
As for the guy trying to get through with gasoline, we can't allow that b/c it's too highly flammable. But I guess you, all experienced pilots, know that. We have to look out for substances that can damage the plane. Terrorism isn't the only concern in our job.
And yes, I think it is ridiculous to take something as small as nailclippers from a passenger. We don't. And I do think it is ridiculous that pilots and FAs have to be searched. Especially if you take a knife from one, and then they go into the cockpit where there's an axe for emergency use. Plus, pilots can take the plane up, and they can take the plane down. I agree, it is illogical. We don't search crews anymore.
Profiling is a good idea. El Al uses it, and they're known to have the best security in the world. Of course, someone did get through with a knife..not sure if that changed their ranking or not. If they come up with it here, well, so much the better. Anything that can help security is a good thing. I'm just responding to people who seem to think I can tell just by looking at someone if they're dangerous or not. It's impossible. If you go through life judging people by the way they look, then you're the type of person defense attorneys like to have on a jury. Luckily, most people don't go by looks..otherwise, people like Ted Bundy would never have been convicted. We can, and do, look at a person's actions closely. If they act somewhat suspicious, they get a more thorough search. But, there are also people who are, and appear, nervous about flying, not because of security, but they're just afraid of being 30,000 feet above the ground. So we have to take that into consideration. Plus, people without consciences can come through screening and not exhibit any signs of nervousness, agitation, etc. It's possible, that's why people can beat polygraph tests, and they aren't admissable in court. A terrorist can fall into this category. If they come up with profiling in the future, well, I'm all for it.
As for the guy trying to get through with gasoline, we can't allow that b/c it's too highly flammable. But I guess you, all experienced pilots, know that. We have to look out for substances that can damage the plane. Terrorism isn't the only concern in our job.
And yes, I think it is ridiculous to take something as small as nailclippers from a passenger. We don't. And I do think it is ridiculous that pilots and FAs have to be searched. Especially if you take a knife from one, and then they go into the cockpit where there's an axe for emergency use. Plus, pilots can take the plane up, and they can take the plane down. I agree, it is illogical. We don't search crews anymore.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Out West
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another bureaucracy gone mad - end result, lots of money spent, fiefdoms built and security not much improved...
FUNDING COST OVERRUNS COULD THREATEN FUTURE SECURITY FUNDING -
Airport Security Report:
Future funding for purchases and installation of security equipment
at the nation's airports could be jeopardized by $3 billion in cost
overruns at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), warned
government and industry officials during a Feb. 5 hearing of the
Senate Aviation Subcommittee.
A number of TSA contracts have escalated wildly out of control and
are now being scrutinized by federal investigators, said Department
of Transportation (DOT) Inspector General Kenneth M. Mead. Deals with
subcontractors in the previous fiscal year were fraught with
overcharging, he added. Aviation Today (Paid subscription service).
-
Airport Security Report:
Future funding for purchases and installation of security equipment
at the nation's airports could be jeopardized by $3 billion in cost
overruns at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), warned
government and industry officials during a Feb. 5 hearing of the
Senate Aviation Subcommittee.
A number of TSA contracts have escalated wildly out of control and
are now being scrutinized by federal investigators, said Department
of Transportation (DOT) Inspector General Kenneth M. Mead. Deals with
subcontractors in the previous fiscal year were fraught with
overcharging, he added. Aviation Today (Paid subscription service).
-
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Europe/USA
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airport Security-an Inside View
I've been reading these opinions with interest. I can see both sides have valid points to make however I side with those who believe that security is a joke and cosmetic in nature. The real point however has been only lightly touched on by bjcc. That is Trust. At some point you have to trust those who are the pros. And I mean all those who are the pro's, police and pilots. If you think that all pilots are potential terrorists, take a bus. I've yet to see any pilot put a gun to a passengers head and tell him/her "you're coming with me". If you want to make airports 100% safe, close them! A little mutual respect would go a long way to make our life ( pilot's and security people) a little easier. I object to being treated as a criminal and being told that I am not allowed to have my pocket knife, nail clippers or leatherman with me onboard. But I am allowed to have a crash axe in the cockpit! Let's get real.
More on Airport Security
`Yankee Clipper` You are absolutely correct in all you say and I can not agree with you more. Many thanks for a most sensible and reasoned post on this very serious subject.
Regarding respect between all parties, a pleasent smile at the security check point and for example, a `good morning Sir sorry but I do need to check your bag` works wonders, this of course gets both of you on the same side. Unfortunately more often than not in my opinion this is not the case, you are more likely to be met by a sullen scowl and very few common courtesies if any at all. This is not allways the case, but more often than not I suggest and the courtesies must be both ways of course.
Regarding respect between all parties, a pleasent smile at the security check point and for example, a `good morning Sir sorry but I do need to check your bag` works wonders, this of course gets both of you on the same side. Unfortunately more often than not in my opinion this is not the case, you are more likely to be met by a sullen scowl and very few common courtesies if any at all. This is not allways the case, but more often than not I suggest and the courtesies must be both ways of course.