El Al passenger flies with gun to New York
 

<a href="http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2002/01/29/News/News.42473.html" target="_blank">Jerusalem Post</a>

Amazing but apparently true, good post! <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

There are holes in airport security you could drive a bus through. Staffed by bored personnel who at the end of the day don't have to get on the aircraft anyway.

My wife was stopped recently at a major European gateway for an international flight when knives and other cutlery showed up on the screen. We looked puzzled at each other and proferred the hand luggage in their direction. Following a token shuffle around, they proclaimed it must have been 'someone else's bag'! At the other end we discovered to our amazement the cutlery (including 3 knives) hiding in a separate zipped part of the bag, last used on a camping trip in Australia 18 months ago!

This is from security that has confiscated an FAs nailclippers at some point during the last few months!

Yeah yeah,my brother,my sister,my mother...everybody got a story about security.... .Some mistakes are bigger than other though..... .But when was the last time an Israeli hijacked an EL-AL flight...?. .Some people at Ben-Gurion are gonna be sweeping the parkinglot.EL-Al is not kind with f@#k-ups.

I think what this shows is that their 'profiling' of pax before check-in works. The pax concerned were not considered a risk and proved to be so. In fact they were so honest that they eventually came forward and admitted their mistakes.

It does show that while X-raying and searching are only a part of the solution even the best can miss the obvious. The governments that are prepared to put their money where their mouths are and set up a proper profiling system are the ones that will have the best statistics in the long run.

Those that rely on politicians who pander the newsroom luvvies with their kneejerk proposal soundbites are the ones that will have their security exposed, embarrased and more importantly breached by the fanatics.

Couldn't agree more Capt'.

Hmmmm:

Capt. Fyne suggests that this incident shows profiling works.

I would suggest it does no such thing. As it happens, this passenger -- like the overwhealming majority of passengers -- had no evil intent. But since most passengers are benign, the fact that this incident didn't result in a shoot-out in flight is meaningless.

Further, I would contend that this incident *really* shows that profiling is effectively pointless: the problem is not whether you can get a weapon on board, but whether you would use one if you had a weapon!

Malc.

Captain P

While I'm terrified of being seeing to disagree, but surely the danger was not *who* was carrying the weapon but that an unauthorised, undocumented weapon got on board, no matter who was carrying it. If the weapon fell into the wrong hands while on board... <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

Absolutely! I can just see those terrorists going through everybody's bags looking for a gun whilst holding them off with a plastic knife.

Sneaky those terrorists - and clairvoyant too.

You can't keep weapons out of jails where the prisoners have no rights. You will never keep em all off of aircraft either.

Get over it

Cheers. .Wino

Sorry, but that story comes from the man himself. Telling this to his embassy is no proof. I´m not able to believe this man. Perhaps he feels good now to be named in the papers once in a life time . . .

Malc, that is exactly the point of profiling. It has nothing to do with weapons. It is to do with preventing someone who would use a weapon, whether they have one or not, from getting on board in the first place. The events of 9/11 show that it didn't take anything more sophisticated than box cutters to cause the tragedy. The press are full of shock horror stories put out by the news luvvies as their undercover reporters smuggle combs and knitting needles on the local shuttle.

As with everything since then we have seen kneejerk, cosmetic security put in place and they are still arguing about the cost of it while it is continually being proven to be of limited use by the press. For too long airlines and governemnts have paid lip service to proper security whilst the beancounters hamstring those that want to do anything that will be of use.

It is not what you allow on board but who you allow on board that is the key to proper security.

I've said it before and I'll say (shout) it again - <a href="http://www.imagingauto.com/bg.htm" target="_blank">BOARDERGUARD !!!</a>

E.g. a colleague of mine recently ran a trial using a BG unit, at the check-in desk of an airport in a Caribbean country ( renowned for having lots of human 'drug mules' ). When the check-in for the flight to London opened, almost unbelievably, the very first passport that was presented and analysed by the BG unit turned out to be a forgery ! - I kid you not - The pax was then led away by the 'authorities' for a chat........ and it then transpired that the flight most unusually suffered 60 no-shows - now I wonder why that was, uhm ?!

Indeed I mentioned this a while back, see: <a href="http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=017000&p=" target="_blank">Drugs bust at Gatwick</a>

UK Gov are supposed to be funding a trial (valued at £5m) courtesy of Qinetiq (the commercial division of DERA) - and the sooner the better.

Yours truly has but a lot of work into the proof of concept of this technology and it's a great bit of kit, it's very versatile, and can be integrated into numerous other systems too - e.g. you can run you Res/Check-in system in parallel on it, and / or have it feed data to the 'security services' for profiling !

For some other threads where I've covered this equipment, see also: <a href="http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=016403&p=" target="_blank">BALPA say: Anti-terrorist cockpit doors 'dangerous'</a> and <a href="http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=016107&p=" target="_blank">BA Pilots to have stun Guns !!!!!!!!</a>

Ps. Some wag came on here the other day with a 'handle' very similar to mine (they were using ' CashDrive' ) and made a post about the security procedures being used at a certain UK airline. I'd just like to set the record straight and point out that the post in question, now living in the Administration forum, was NOT made by me !

I take your point about profiling, Capt pprune but if someone manages to take a handgun on board an aircraft it can hardly be represented as a victory for security procedures. This is still a very major screw-up!

Profiling has its place but must be backed up even for "safe" passengers. This should be a warning against relying too heavily on this one line of defence.

mmmmm - "profiling"?

I was flying from a UK airport to the US a couple of months ago on a "staff" ticket. So I politely hung back to let the fare-paying SLF board and I joined the rear of the queue.

All of the pax were having their carry-ons visually checked, but when I got to the gate (not late) I was basically asked "Do you have anyting that you shouldn't in your carry-on?", "Did you buy anything other than from the shops?", and was waved through.

Was that because I was mentally "profiled" as "staff or family"? I wasn't too happy about that.

As has been said before - it's gonna be practically impossible to stop a determined person geting on a flight. Sorry, but no real solution to offer - except "best awareness" by all involved.

Fly safe Brothers & Sisters

Stu

Capt PPRuNe, Please tell me how profiling would keep someone like Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City Bomber, from boarding an aircraft or working as a baggage handler, etc?

LevelFive, The baggage handlers are "trusted" employees........Please don't insult them.

Unless you've been through El Al security you wouldn't know what I mean LevelFive. As far as I am aware there was intelligence on McVeigh but then he was one of those who didn't want to put himself at risk. We are talking about terrorists who would try to board an aircraft with the intention of taking unlawful control. Unless you've seen profiling in action you may not appreciate the concept.

I am not saying that profiling should be taken as a stand alone solution but in conjunction with other more recognisable methods. It is certainly better than the farce that is going on in many airports at the moment, especially in the USA which almost totally rely on metal detection and x-rays. Some people expect the security to be 100% foolproof but it never can be so we rely on several sophisticated layers and not the political whims of sound-bite seekers.

As a Lowly Sling Wing Driver, I certainly can only speak about the Big Guys Aircraft, as SLF or Law Enforcement.. .IN My Humble Opinion and from what I have seen since 9/11 its all a big bandage on the problem. The US has all kinds of Military folks running around in camo uniforms with heavy artillery and couldnt profile a child molester if they had a confession. Those other folks who have been watching the Xray machine since Madam Curie was a kid MAY SOON be Federal Employees. Which means they will be very similar to an Air Force ICBM. 1. Wont Work 2. Cant be Fired. True Law Enforcement that I have seen lately has been some Fed Agents monitoring folks entering the U.S from some other country. Of course by then it was too late for problematic types, but just maybe it will keep them from entering the country.. .Someone above mentioned catching them via Passport Control. A great start if they have the technology available AND readily share information. I know for a fact if Information goes via INTERPOL, it might as well go by Carrier Pigeon.

Cap'n:

I think you missed the point I tried to raise. I'm not saying that profiling isn't a useful tool, but your suggestion was that this incident showed that it worked. This incident does not do that. At all. Not even a little bit.

An example: if all security at LHR spontaneously decided to wave everyone through one day, it is extremely likely that nothing bad would happen. Yet only a fool would conclude that the security was *therefore* unecessary.

What profiling *is* is a tool to allow security to focus on the most likely risk sources, so as to minimize the invasiveness of security to everyone else. But that fact that someone escapes the spotlight thrown by a profile does not, ever, show that the someone is A Good Guy...

Bluntly, profiling is _most_ useful when you have a pretty good idea of the characteristics of your enemy. But it doesn't do anything for, say, the bitter ex-employee (think USAir and FedEx), *because* that ex-employee would (might) show a positive Good Guy profile.

Think about this: El Al has a few days before and a couple of hours on the day of the flight to develop a profile. Someone like MI5, the FBI or the Defense Departments' Defense Security Agency has months to work on background checks for security clearances (positive vetting). Yet espionage happens, therefore clearances aren't certainties, therefore profiling isn't reliable (actually, it's reliably going to fail).

As I said before, profiling can be helpful as a tool, but please don't presume that the Israeli model is portable elsewhere. (Like it or not, El Al considers Jewish folk to be lower risk than Bosnians, etc. -- and they're probably right in their little microcosm, but that's damn all use at, say, JFK or LHR for everyone else).

Malc.