[Potakas]

Just to add that i feel safe traveling from UK to anywhere and actually i have not any problem to wait on the queue for 10-20 minutes more in order to arrive to my destination safe, without explosions and hijackings.

Actually once, (non UK/US airport) i had problem when a mother was taking liquids over 100ml and when the security guy told her that you cannot have it with you she responded that ”this is the milk for my baby”,, and he said ”oooohhh for your baby is ok..” and he didn’t even open the bottle to smell if it was milk. This woman came on board with 1 lt of white liquid for a 45 minutes flight..

[MartynSinclair]

The point I was making is that we do not need Directors of major airlines suggesting that some UK airport security measures are REDUNDANT, when live explosives are still being found, even if it is in cargo as appose to pax areas. It is still an airport.

[NTarrant]

The usual proceedure is for the security staff to get the, in this case the mother, to drink some of the milk or whatever it is.

There are some simple measures that could speed up security and that is floor walkers advising people what they need to remove etc. Not the current half a dozen people waving bags saying “any liquids” I mean someone approaching people and getting them prepared.

It happens everytime that there are six people in front of me and I have removed my jacket and have my liquids and lap top out ready to place in the trays whilst the person at the front is still in their overcoat. Floor walkers would get people ready and be enpowered to move people aside if they have not got ready

[DisgustedofSwieqi]

“The point I was making is that we do not need Directors of major airlines suggesting that some UK airport security measures are REDUNDANT, when live explosives are still being found, even if it is in cargo as appose to pax areas. It is still an airport”

I do not see the logic in this argument.

If some security measures are redundant, then the fact that a device has been found on a freighter has absolutely no bearing on Mr Broughton calling for their elimination.

Last week, I was refused entry to the restricted zone for possessing a small utility (blade/screwdriver) that complied with DfT/BAA rules, by the shift supervisor. If they do not know their own rules, it is not exactly a confidence builder in the system and those manning it.

Let’s face it, we need effective security, but not ineffective theatre posing as security.

[MartynSinclair]

The logic of the argument DS is that there is no such thing as a “redundant security measure” otherwise you may just as well publish all the currently used measures and those that are “redundant”, to infirm both the public and terrorist’s alike. For a director of a major airline and the biggest user of London Heathrow to make a press statement that the airport authorities are using (not possibly using), but USING redundant security procedures shows a total lack of understanding about implementation of security and guess what, within 4 days of the comment, primed bombs turn up at a UK airport. The fact that these were found within a cargo area and not a pax area proves the point that the airport authorities have tightened security up and it works, because the terrorists are looking at other loopholes in the system.

There should NOT be a published standardised procedure. For example, whether an IPAD is a lap top or not or if shoes are inspected in one terminal but not in another, just accept that if this is what UK or even USA security demand, accept it. Passengers need to be patient in the lines and understand that security personnel sometimes need to interpret the reactions of passengers when they see other people being stopped and searched. One very famous episode was only averted because the security forces watched the reactions of a passenger in the queue who was watching a perfectly ‘safe’ passenger being searched prior to boarding.

I M H O if airports were to be airports and not shopping centres it would make the job of our security forces far far easier as well as making the passenger flow far quicker. Once again, Martin Broughton’s comment was a disgraceful example of a senior airline director placing profit above security and is indefensible.

[Potakas]

Just to add that Dubai bomb was flown on passenger planes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11661496

Regards

[MartynSinclair]

How any poster can refer to security as being “ineffective theatre” should read the article from CNN as well as the one posted above from the BBC and then comment!

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/10/31/security.concern/index.html?hpt=T1

[FlyingChinaman]

Dear all,

I have just experienced another airport security inconsistancy yesterday at two US airports. I had in my hand luggage a BANANA hanger with a 2-inch (about 4 cm) metal hook. No problem with the Miami airport but transiting LAX for HKG I was asked to have a 2nd screening and a physical search. When I raised the point why there was no consistancy amongst US aipports, this exceptionally nice security personal (rare in the USA) told me they do not establish regular patterns as a way of fighting terrorism. I can accept that practice PROVIDED there is a common unpublished standard between airport world-wide as a working guideline.

BA chairman has a point whether he is tackling it the right way or not!

As a passenger I welcome a more up-to-date effective global method without some obsolete procedures which was hastily introduced after 9/11 but remain in force. BTW, I value my life as much if not more then most readers on this forum!

The recent cargo bombs from Yenman which was transferred to two passenger planes only exposed this security weakness between cargo flown on cargo planes and commerical passenger flights which was long known to many aviation experts. Some informed passengers like myself had long been aware of such security defects.

Safe travels to all!!!.

[DisgustedofSwieqi]

Martyn Sinclair

If you stop huffing and puffing and read my post again, you will see perfectly how I can call being refused entry to the restricted zone ‘theatre.’

I was carrying a tool that complied with BAA rules and the security supervisor did not understand her own company rules. It’s not very difficult when a blade or tool up to 6cms is allowed on board and the pax is carrying a tool with a 4cm blade and a 4cm screwdriver.

How else would you describe this? Blatant incompetence perhaps?

Add to that the fuss they made, insisting that I was accompanied out of the restricted zone by a grim faced security officer carrying the prohibited object (which the rules say is not prohibited) as if it was a level 4 biohazard, in front of the whole queue of people waiting for screening.

Theatre yes, but effective security, I think not.

[MartynSinclair]

DS – unfortunately, you fail to grasp the basic principles of profiling and security. A few weeks ago, I passed through airport security at a UK airport as part of an operating crew for a non-commercial / private flight. I was one of 4 crew; only one of us was in uniform the other 3 jackets and ties. We each carried flight bags which included various items needed for the flight. Alarms went off and we were all pulled over and searched due to security not being happy with 2 items that were in 2 of the bags. These items are carried by all pilots of this particular aircraft type and I have no intention of identifying the items.

We had 2 choices, argue, make a fuss or cooperate fully. We were all displaying BAA airport security passes as required. We co-operated fully, it delayed us by 10 minutes we were all searched – but were eventually cleared. This could have been for one of many reasons.

1. Somebody was concerned about the equipment

2. we were stopped so the security cameras monitor the reaction of a passenger behind us

3. A passenger behind us was under suspicion so searching us held that passenger up giving people time to take a closer look

4. Quite simply it could have been a training exercise.

5. or a host of many other reasons

It may very well have been a theatre exercise but quite frankly, at least the security people are doing a damn good job, especially when they have to deal with passengers who always believe they know the job/systems/counter terrorism procedures far better and cause a fuss.
It may seem redundant and a waste of time to you, but rather than criticize, accept it as way of life and thank your lucky stars as I do every time I board an aircraft either as a passenger or crew that I have the confidence of knowing, our passenger terminals are becoming safer by the day. I think you are taking an extremely naïve approach to what you believe is necessary or unnecessary.

Please remember and you seem to miss the point, Martin Broughton made a damn stupid comment and 4 days later a live bomb was found. Yes I read your post more than once, please dont be as naive to think the inconsistecies are there for any other reason than passnger safety.

[Deleted User]

Another interesting take on what I also believe were totally inappropriate comments from Mr. Broughton; I have several friends who are pilots for BA on the long-haul routes. There is a genuine concern among some, not all pilots, that when they meet their colleagues on a roster and are about to start a 9 night trip, that they have no idea who they are actually flying with as it is very unusual for long-haul pilots to fly with the same colleague more than once. Whether it is paranoia or insecurity, I have heard first-hand how some pilots worry who their colleagues on the flight deck actually are, the term “sleepers” have been used.
Pilots are genuinely sensible sorts of chaps and lassies – but I know one pilot who resigned because of this fear, especially when some departures are routed for maximum climb and on occasions, tail lights out. BA crews are not encouraged to fly with their families on board, although many still do, for fear of family members being targeted by a highjack attempt.

I agree that security measures are tight, they are a hassle and you never know what surprises you are asked to do next. Lines would move faster if people were prepared and passengers just accepted and stopped arguing about the different procedures in each terminal.

Disgsutedof S should learn more about airport security and not moan about what he may think as being an act, it could just save the “boom boom “sound. I certainly do not think Mr Sinclair was huffing and puffing.

[DisgustedofSwieqi]

Martyn Sinclair

You are the king of illogical thinking.

Firstly, you quote the incident at Heathrow, where El Al screeners discovered the lady carrying the hidden bomb in her hand luggage. The El Al process (which can be heavy handed, but has an excellent track record) is completely different to the BAA process, so non sequitur.

Secondly, you waffle on about your experience. I was not there and cannot comment on that, but I am telling you that I was refused entry to the restricted area with a tool that complies with BAA published regulations. Not only refused entry, but refused in a theatrical manner.

CM Burchhardt, did it cross your mind that Martin Broughton is a highly intelligent individual who is the chairman of a public company, that also happens to be an airline.

Do you really think he would make a public statement, with a controversial theme, without first having checked with the relevant experts in BA (and they do have such people) to ensure what he said was reasonable and defensible?

Finally, you both should think about the implication of bombs being able to ‘get into the system’ as cargo.

That is the truly scary fact and no doubt people are working very hard to tighten that up.

[VintageKrug]

Quite right, DisgustedofSwieqi.

Martin Broughton did not call for a reduction in security. To from the original article:
—————

“Speaking at the UK Airport Operators’ Association annual conference, Mr Broughton said that no-one wanted weaker security.

“He was quoted by the Financial Times as telling the conference: “We all know there’s quite a number of elements in the security programme which are completely redundant and they should be sorted out.”

—————

What he was discussing specifically related to passenger travel, and to ditching the superficial security show for something with more substance.

Remember, it was intelligence tip-offs, not scanning which discovered this latest threat. NO scanner would have detected the explosives used.

Obstructing passenger travel for no effective purpose costs the global economy millions, possibly billions, and is one of the ways in which terrorists win.

It is right to challenge current procedures and push for greater use of both Intelligence and where possible technology to return to as non-invasive security screening as possible, while at the same time maintaining (opr even increasing) the strength of security as they are freed to focus efforts on higher risk threats.

[Binman62]

Almost certainly a controversial post…..

Am I alone in wondering if the latest scare was real?

The whole thing seems to be highly improbable from the idea it was a dummy run to intelligence that can pin point specific aircraft and routes….. It was like an episode of 24 or Spooks yet the poor woman who was arrested in Yemen was released without charge.

Blanket 24 hour news coverage; EK201 being tracked by half a dozen TV news helicopters as it makes it final approach to JFK having been escorted by fighters and CNN stating that East Midlands airport served London.!! Fears and concerns increased and the bogey man of aviation surfaces just 48 hours after the chairman of BA had the audacity to criticise the Americans and question some of the more ludicrous measures at airports.

I hate the idea that I am being cynical and we clearly live in dangerous times and face very real threats, but frankly I would put nothing past the security services of just about any country and the upshot of last Friday is that debate is stifled, security is almost certain to increase and we are all a little bit more scared. It all seems to me to be way too convenient.

I am all for the tightest possible security but removing my belt and patting down my 80 year old mother or 6 year son is clearly a pointless exercise and redundant. I agree with both the chairman of BA and CEO of Ryan air.

[MartynSinclair]

DS I am not sure if English is your first language, but ingnorance of a system in your case, could possibly be an excuse. As you quite rightly point out El Al (and by the way, please do not assume that that was the incident I was discussing, becasue it was not) are heavy handed and as as a fare paying passenger it pleases me no end how heavy handed they get, becasue they are safe and no one, except the ignornat would ever question their procedures, which in some cases makes BAA’s procedures look perfectly advanced – thats the idea!!

As you said, you were not there, so please again, do not speak on the grounds of knowledge, becasue on this subject you seem only to have knoweldge from the passengers viewpoint. not the airports view point. So you were refused entry becasue you had a tool, which if it was that clear, would have been resolved by asking to see a supervisor.

Martin Broughton comment was made in the interest of commercial profit. Unless VintageKrug is Mr. Broughton’s mouthpiece, (which many possibly believe VK is – but lets assume, the non identitifiable VK “person” is not) – Vintagekrug as well as DS are not qualified to comment except to interpret the English used.

“We all know there’s quite a number of elements in the security programme which are completely redundant and they should be sorted out.”

Show me Mr Broughtons credentials to make these comments about airport security and I will withdraw my critisicm.

In the meantime, I would suggest to both Vintagekrug and DisgustingofSwiegi to stick to providing information they know best, and not to comment on subjects where knowledge is lacking to resort merely to huffs and puffs.

For the millionth times, LIVE BOMBS WERE FOUND IN AIRCRAFT ON UK SOIL WITHIN 3 DAYS OF BROUGHTON’s COMMENTS! Cargo area or oassenger area, they were found on an airplane in a UK airport.

Bang Bang !

Please take these threats far more seriously and leave security issues to those that know and not to those that think they know!!

[Author]

Posts