Security
 

By LUBNA TAKRURI, Associated Press Writer
Sat Mar 31, 9:55 PM ET



WASHINGTON - A uniformed flight attendant was arrested at Dulles International Airport after she turned herself in for allegedly carrying a concealed handgun aboard a flight from Atlanta, authorities said Saturday.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Transportation Security Administration, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies were investigating if the woman had gone through security and if the gun passed through a checkpoint unnoticed in Atlanta, TSA spokesman Barry Phelps said.

Janet Tucker, 45, of Lithonia, Ga., turned herself in Friday for carrying the weapon on United flight 7591, said Rob Yingling, a spokesman for the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority. She was in uniform but was not part of the duty crew at the time, he said.

"It seems it was an inadvertent incident, from her description," he said.

Tucker was arrested and cited on charges of having a concealed weapon at the airport. She was interviewed and released on a summons to appear in Loudoun County Court in Virginia at a future date, Yingling said. It was not clear whether a court date had been scheduled and he didn't know whether Tucker had a lawyer.

United Airlines spokesman Jeff Kovick said a United employee had been arrested but would not confirm any other information.

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport spokesman Herschel Grangent had no further comment. A telephone message seeking comment from FBI officials in Atlanta was not immediately returned.

What a stupid Bit-h! It is hard enough for crew to go through security now and then she goes and does that. She apparently made it to her destination without anyone even noticing. Take your gun home, slap yourself in the head and don't do it again.

Is it possible that she was deliberately trying to highlight the stupidity of airport security as it currently operates?

Oh please! Togalk, get a grip of yourself. All this does is show that the sham that is called airport security these days, whether the TSA or the daft DfT here in the UK, is nothing more than a cosmetic waste of time and money.

It goes to prove that searching for a prohibited item without knowing a persons intent is useless. It matters not whether the flight attendant mentioned in the article above carried the weapon deliberately or accidentally on board her flight. If she never had any intent to cause trouble on a flight then the only problem is that the screeners failed to spot the weapon in the first place.

Without proper psychological profiling no one will ever know what's going to happen until the next big terrorist success. Anyone can get past the current type of 'security' we have at airports as long as they have a valid ticket and no prohibited items. There is nothing to stop anyone who has intent to cause problems from obtaining any number of items after passing through security that can endanger the flight crew and the flight.

Before I get lambasted by the "huggy fluffy brigades", psychological profiling is not the same as racial profiling. Already practised by one well known Middle East country, anyone travelling on their airlines are subjected to an escalating level of profiling by properly trained security personnel. If you give off signals that indicate you need further scrutiny then that scrutiny is applied. If you are not considered a threat then you proceed to check-in and then on through scanning for prohibited items.

For a long time the argument against the successful implementation of passenger profiling was cost and time. That argument has been now been shown to have been worthless. If you have spent any time at a busy airport in the US or UK and seen the queues snaking around terminals and the amount of money that has been spent on equipment and the numbers of personnel you will be in no doubt that they are struggling to cope.

And yet... we still hear of incidents where people carry prohibited items past 'security' undetected. Of course, those responsible for making the decisions to go for 100% screening for prohibited items rather than passenger profiling have a lot to answer for, not least why their little empires consistently fail to stop incidents such as the one above from happening.

Fear more from incompetence by those that made the decision to dismiss profiling than a flight attendant who most likely carried her personal handgun on a flight unintentionally and managed to get past the rent-a-screener. If and/or when the next major terrorist atrocity involving airlines happens, the waste of resources put into the current UK/US airport security will probably pale into insignificance as the politicians and bureaucrats involved in setting up the current sham make their excuses and look for another trough of money to get their snouts into to prop up their little empires.

At least the flight attendant had the courage to own up to probably having committed a felony and now faces a court hearing. Ignoring the debate about gun control in the US, the point is that she brought the deficiency in security to light. Watching the recriminations fly (excuse the pun) around the TSA and their masters will be just another example of 'pass the buck' until they find the team of low-paid screeners that were on duty for that flight and blame them whilst avoiding dealing with the obvious need for profiling.

Hypothetically, would you rather be on a flight that had 10 people carrying weapons with no intent on using them or one person with a couple of glass bottles of flammable liquid who intended to cause as much harm and destruction as possible on that flight?

On the airport I'm working on (as you might have guessed it from my username, I'm doing aircraft maintenance), everybody entering the passenger ramp has to undergo a metal detector / wand / x-ray search. Now my colleagues and myself routinely carry some tools in our pockets, like Leatherman tools, screwdrivers, box cutters etc., not to speak of our toolboxes, which hold loads of potentially dangerous tools.
Now every time we pass through security, we get asked the same question:" What do you need the tools for?". We answer "For aircraft maintenance" and they let us pass.
Now first, our airport is quite small, most people working there (including the flight crews) know each other, also from our lives off work (there are two groups of population in the area, the locals, which means mostly farmers and aviation people. Each group sticks together and there is very little contact between the two).
The security people know us personally, they know which company we are working for and after all we are also wearing our uniforms and ID badges.
They also understand that a terrorist would quite possibly lie to them.
Still they have to ask the silly question, because they get watched themselves.

I worked out at KATL for 4 years. The problem is the layout of the place. 6 terminal buildings connected by over a mile of tunnel (I used to exercise down there on rainy days). The crew shuttles drop you off at concourse C, but a new rule has just been decreed that deadheading employees must pass through security at T before boarding. Obviously this person did not comply.

Logic would dictate moving the screening out to each building, or even to the gates. Instead there is a bank of 40 or so lanes of screeners at T. And they are some fine looking people too - Hartsfield airport is the biggest jobs program in the People's Republic of Atlanta.....

Danny, your post is spot on. What we need is proper security, not the "Window Dressing" farce that we all have to participate in. If done correctly, we should not even notice security and if sensible methods are employed both those on board flights and on those on the ground beneath them will have the benefit of enhanced safety. We do this by working smarter not harder and passenger profiling is one of these methods.

PM

Maybe it's a good idea to "preflight" your baggagebefore going to work??? Not that most people make it a habit of carrying a gun around, but maybe she normally carried it for a valid reason then forgot...maybe making a habit of inventorying your baggage before going to the airport is a good idea..:uhoh:

Security
 

Well, here we go again; acres and acres of prose about the most pointless exercise ever inflicted on employees and customers of our beloved air transport industry.
It is pointless because the whole shebang seems to be based on preventing the reoccurence of that vile disaster in New York in 2001.
The authorities have taken on the impossible task of preventing the carriage on to aircraft of any items which could , if one stretches one`s imagination to infinity, could be used to take over control of an aircraft; e.g. toxic Evian, corrosive toothpaste, exploding Old Spice , to name a few. Here`s one they havèn`t considered yet, and I hesitate to suggest it for obvious reasons, a piece of knotted string, as used to great effect by countless assassins for thousands of years.
The problem is that I don`t believe that we ordinary plebs have been treated to any evidence or even reasonable speculation on how the
perpetrators of the tragedies of September 11th managed to overpower four seperate flight crews in a matter of minutes, more or less at the same time. Has any one of our learned and esteemed posters seen a transcript of a CVR, for example, that would shed some light on the mystery?
So, the thrust of the security operation is directed towards preventing
the carriage onboard of ...........whatever. The security organisations have the near impossible task of fishing a limitless ocean, with no clear idea of what they are fishing for. That some security operatives discharge their duties in an unpleasant and irritating manner is another question altogether.
The current situation can be ameliorated by the authorities identifying and setting more realistic goals for the security operatives, that is to say target a drastically reduced list of likely articles of risk, a list based on a
realistic appraisal of what has or is likely to occur during a takeover, or attempted destruction of an aircraft.
God help us all.

Gentlemn don't waste your energy getting all uptight about profiling,
In the UK at least profiling will NEVER happen, it's far to politically sensitive and Human rights law would almost certainly scupper it.

I can see it now....

Defendant:-

"Yes M'Lud I'm from a minority Muslim ethnic community, I'm aged between 20 and 40, male, and my human rights have been completely abused because I have to stand in a line along with other people just like me and asnswer all sorts of awkward questions at Airports".

Judge:-

"How terrible, case upheld, costs to the defendant....Next".

Or Maybe...

Left wing MP

"Mr Speaker is the house aware that nearly all of my constituents wishing to re-enter this country from a pleasent stay with their relatives in the Middle East, are forced to queue and answer very personal questions about their family before being allowed to proceed".

Please note...I use stereotypes for clarity

Here it includes members of the airport management, who can go wherever they like to without being searched.
Now, not even assuming that an airport manager is a bad guy, but e.g. it has happened in the past that bank managers had their families taken hostage and were then escorted by a criminal to the bank where they were ordered to open the safe.
Imagine a similar scenario where an airport manager is being forced to use his privileges to pass a weapon through security.
BTW, our security guards have to search each other upon entering the sterile area.

Arinc:
They manage it for insurance, it's perfectly legal to charge a woman less for car insurance than a man because they have statistics showing that women cost the insurance companies less money. If they've got statistics to prove a certain group warrants more attention at airports than others, it should come under the same category. Either that or all us blokes should get cheaper car insurance!

(But yes, it's a political hot potato)

Following the Brighton bomb attack in 1984, the IRA issued a statement;
This comment is as true today as it was 22 years ago, and the incident above highlights just how farcical the security situation has become / has always been. It could be argued (and I'm sure the security screeners will rely heavily on it) that the flight attendant was viewed as a low risk and was not subjected to the full vigours of security screening. However, this just highlights the hypocrisy and inconsistancy of the way screening is done. Or maybe the screeners were to busy looking out for nail scissors to notice that a firearm was passing through their machine.

The time for proper, appropriate security is long overdue, and Danny's profiling would appear to be the method to go for. And if any individual feels this impinges on their 'Human Rights' then they should be reminded that they have a choice, and redirected to the nearest ferry port or railway station.

<And if any individual feels this impinges on their 'Human Rights' then they should be reminded that they have a choice, and redirected to the nearest ferry port or railway station.>
Remind me again......what platform does the 08:20 to New Delhi depart from..? :O

Yes, I know many people who have to endure this ignominy upon entering the UK. It is essentially a disgrace that screening (and intelligence in general) relies largely upon racial stereotypes alone, due to insufficient resources allocated to learning about where the true risks lie.

Before responding that this is "washy liberal" - think about what I mean for a moment - what we need is proper profiling, which takes into account a number of factors. Race/nationality alone is but one factor - sex, travel profile, home town, religion - are all others. Opinions above, however, seem to fall into the trap of considering that profiling should target one group: this is little different from the recent security farce, but simply aimed at one group.

What I am stressing is that sub-groups below this, behavioural analysis (within reason) and many other factors can all be assessed for less cost than the current situation - and this is most certainly not aimed solely at Muslim Pakistani nationals, for example.

Some posters above seem to take Danny's points, and aim them directly at certain communities - clearly some will be of a greater focus than others, however, the implication in many posts is that - well - they will have to grin and bear it. The reality is that there are Timothy McVeahs around who fit white, yet dangerous profiles, and this tosh of saying "well get the next flight back to New Delhi" is just one comment down a slippery path to downright racism, quite different from the point that - I think - Danny was trying to make.

If you thought US immigration was an unpleasant experience over the last five years, ask your friendly Indian neighbour about his experience with the UK.


It rather goes back to the point that Danny makes of throwing money at a problem with little understanding of what exactly needs to be achieved...

Ah yes, the age-old closet-racist opinion, that disallows any form of independent thought among anyone other than the white majority.

Don't allow confusion between excercising ones democratic rights and disloyalty to a country - else the prevalance of idiots with such opinions as above will only perpetuate.

And, I assume (I hope) you mean - the next train back to Merseyside?

Pineridge: "The problem is that I don`t believe that we ordinary plebs have been treated to any evidence or even reasonable speculation on how the perpetrators of the tragedies of September 11th managed to overpower four seperate flight crews in a matter of minutes, more or less at the same time."
It's all here: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm
In terms of timings of the actual hijacks:
American 11; 8:14
United 175; between 8:42 and 8:46
American 77; between 8:51 and 8:54
United 93; 9:28
So not quite "at the same time". Which wouldn't be that difficult, people have watches.
The "how" also seems fairly straightforward: a combination of knives, pepper spray, violence, and the pre-Sept 11th SOPs.

Danny said: ARINC said: You're both wrong. I don't disagree with the gist of Danny's argument re. the window-dressing nature of security, but I beg to differ re. racial profiling. Danny is obviously talking about El Al.
Back in my post-student days I would pax with them occasionally - I lived practically next door to STN, and they were the only airline offering STN-JFK direct. They practiced blatant and unashamed racial profiling; all non-Jewish passengers were taken aside before check-in and interrogated thoroughly: was I Israeli? Was I Jewish? Did I speak Hebrew? What was my nationality and religion? Where were my family from? Did I have a good reason to fly El Al?
Same story returning from JFK, only even more so - on one occasion several of us were selected for 'special processing' which involved being taken to an interrogation room in the bowels of the terminal for something like an hour, where there were even more intrusive questions, our documents were taken away 'for examination', and our bags and personal effects were practically dissected. *Then* we were allowed to check in.
If this is what 'profiling' means, I want nothing to do with it - whatever you call the profiling, it was clearly racist in nature. There has to be a better way, but this isn't it - it WILL be abused.
R1

JUUD

Just go naked, take nothing with you....problem solved:ugh:

It is getting to the point where this kind of stupid solution = the stupid situation.

J:ok: