Joined up airport security thinking.

Posted by: Willy on 07 September 2006

Was on my way home last night, through Liverpool Airport, in plenty of time looking forward to chilling out in the lounge and maybe indulging in the rather tasty Danish pastries they usually have there. Checked in my suit bag (a tri-fold that prior to the latest security escalation I was always allowed to carry on) and off through security. Usual new procedure, jacket off, belt off, laptop out, shoes off, phone out and clean through as usual. My backpack was intercepted by one of the security staff for closer examination. I travel a lot and it happens from time to time so no great surprise. Whilst I redressed myself my backpack was attacked with vigour until the operative eventually produced with a look of triumph a Kensington microsaver notebook lock and declared “can’t take that on-board” For the uninitiated the microsaver is a length of plastic coated steel cable with a loop at one end and a lock at the other for attaching my laptop to something solid (radiator is good) when left unattended.
I protested, politely and without raising my voice, that this had been on a flight the previous day, and several the previous week without any problem and that none of the other airports I’d been through seemed to have a problem with it. (The same cable has been in my backpack, and through many national and international airports since before 9/11, indeed on 9/11 it was through Heathrow, an din the following days Berlin, and Paris all without a problem.)
“Different airports have different rules” was the imaginative and unexpected reply. Despite my continued protestations neither the operative nor the supervisor would bend on this and as I wasn’t prepared to check my backpack, even without the laptop in it, the cable was abandoned. I gave them the key off my key-ring and suggested that they give it all to someone who had a laptop. No point in it going to waste.
As I was leaving the operator finally proffered a reason for the confiscation. “You could use that as a restraint. You could choke someone with that.” I pointed out that if so minded I could probably choke someone with my bare hands, and beat a hasty retreat to the (Airside) lounge.
Later as I stood in the queue to board I had time to reflect on events and realised how much easier I would sleep that night, safe in the knowledge that if a miscreant had attempted to board my flight armed with a Kensington microsaver with the intention of throttling anyone then they would most certainly be thwarted……unless of course they were dressed for business, equipped with a potential lethal tie, or a stout leather belt, or had the wit to go to the airside shops and buy a good strong silk scarf, or steal the leather strap off of the handbag from the lady in front, and that’s before they even considering kitting up with a (broken) bottle of wine or in your eyes perfume or many of the other potentially lethal improvised weapons available in the airside shops. All at 20% off high street prices.

Everyone feel safer now?


Willy.
Posted on: 07 September 2006 by Phil Cork
Willy,

I understand your frustration. I too travel a great deal and frequently marvel at the 'rationale' behind some of these decisions.

Plastic knives are still used on board most carriers, but metal forks are still provided.

Which would you rather be stabbed in the neck with? A sharp metal fork or a blunt metal knife?

Hmmmm...

Phil
Posted on: 07 September 2006 by sonofcolin
Phil,

You haven't travelled business class recently then? All metal knives and forks (Air France, BA, Austrian, Delta - the ones I have been on within the last year). Potential miscreants only travel economy is the obvious rationale.

Willy, I sympathise. I remember being in Banjul airport in the 80's with a bull whip in my luggage (don't ask) and the security guys took it out, gave it a few 'cracks' and put it back in. Them were the days!
Posted on: 07 September 2006 by PJT
And of course dont leave your CO2 tyre inflaters in your pack either.
I got 2 bottles confiscated, and I haven't used the inflater yet...
Posted on: 07 September 2006 by Stuart M
Sorry this is long but entering RANT MODE:-

Take a bic pen and snap it - the razor sharp edge could be lethal.

Are the little pens just as potentially lethal - I suspect so. You know the blue ones the GIVE OUT on flights to the USA to complete the entry forms.

Of course every evil person will fill these out in complete honesty. I.e are you a; Nazi, Terrorist, Smuggler and best of all "moral turpitude" (yes I have a Janet Jackson @ the super bowl video on my person).

Agrhhhhhhhhh

For me a classic was for some they were making people take of their shoes to pass through the X-ray machine. I asked before I went through the metal detector should I do this, response “No” I walked through and the security guard on the other side of the metal detector who I had looked at while asking my “should I take of my shoe” question said “Shoe heals are to thick, body search”. I asked could I just put them through the scanner – no, even though I had been given wrong advice, the person who made me go through the search had heard this but policy and procedure is everything. So a 15 minute delay (pierced nipples and body metal detector wand added to the fun) and eventually got through. Then when on plane partner discovers a lighter in cargo pants (to many pockets) that he’d forgotten was there.

This stupidity, got me thinking on how many ways you could – even with current restrictions get through so called airport security with potential weapons or even worse something that could be catastrophic (assuming your happy to commit suicide). My background is Physics BSc & ‘A’ level Chemistry with an interest in cookery, medicine and the internet for info. I am not going to mention any of the ideas I came up with, the Bic pen is a simple example.

Intelligence and profiling is the way to go. But with the flawed intelligence (WMD, The Ricin plot) and non intelligent profiling (Your of colour and have a beard) airport security that the public endure seems to be more to give a false sense of security and ‘tick boxes’ should something happen. Also all these ‘fears’ do seem to boost certain political parties ratings.

This combined with the fact that, security is a “crap job”. The money is low, you get abuse and, in general, no thanks. My guess is quotas and procedures are the rule and they result in stupid situations like mine (can’t question another officers response but if something outside of other rules procedures must be followed even when it’s obvious they are not needed).

If you want full on airport security then lets have:-

- \Microwave body scanners (I don’t care if someone see’s me naked if I don’t get blown up on a plane – but I don’t want the pics on the internet – enough of them already <grin>Winker
- Explosive detectors.
- Security staff with excellent training and dedicated to the job.
The pay rates would probably need to double.
- Proper airport security. So I can take bottles of water bought after security on a long flight to the USA (I get through 2 litres normally)

This will cost £££ and large increase in air fares as a result.
Since money is a driver for most things, I can’t see that real and effective security will happen.

END RANT
Posted on: 07 September 2006 by Phil Cork
quote:
Originally posted by sonofcolin:
Phil,

You haven't travelled business class recently then? All metal knives and forks (Air France, BA, Austrian, Delta - the ones I have been on within the last year). Potential miscreants only travel economy is the obvious rationale.

Willy, I sympathise. I remember being in Banjul airport in the 80's with a bull whip in my luggage (don't ask) and the security guys took it out, gave it a few 'cracks' and put it back in. Them were the days!


I fly business and first from DC to Sydney - bangkok - tokyo - hawaii etc, with Star Alliance - United, Thai, Singapore etc. United definitely don't have metal knives in any class, Thai still have plastic, but got a metal knife on either JAL or Singapore recently.

Glasses for drinks are potentially the most lethal and they all use those...

phil
Posted on: 07 September 2006 by Rico
it's all completely ridiculous PR BS.

bright idea: "let's all use plastic knives and forks in place of metal". Seriously, how much less damage will a plastic utensil (or indeed, a finger) do to soft tissue (eg - an eye?).

"lets ban battery devices". Oh dear, I recall the start of Operation Desert Storm where cameras were consigned to the hold because of battery power that "might be used to set off a bomb" (!). my reasonable question regarding the collective current and easy access to watch batteries onboard was met with a "please board the plane now sir".

I left heathrow on Sept 16 2001 amidst the 'heightened security' - the amount of detail missed by the security-droids was ironically silly... hey, they're only people after all, and they often had been on their feet for 14 hours or more and were tired/fatigued. and making the poor judgement calls associated with fatigue, such as removing an innocent security lock. (oh sorry 'a significant threat to security'. they were probably michael hutchence fans).

ISTM the response to the most recent threats was there to some degree to illustrate to the public that significant planning had been done in the wake of sept 11, and pre-programmed responses were available to deploy rapidly - if only to provide some comfort.

/rant
Posted on: 07 September 2006 by David Sutton
I also fly quite frequently, and struggle to fathom how the latest LHR security measures are doing any real good. The recent hand luggage restrictions are barking. How does enforcing the reduction in size in cabin luggage prevent a terrorist atrocity?

Whilst terrorism is a threat to all air travellers, what about those passengers who have yet to return their Dell or Sony Vaio laptops? The prospect of a battery bursting into flames on a flight is terrifying. Osama would be most pleased.

david
Posted on: 08 September 2006 by Aiken Drum
Flying out of Belfast International recently I was asked to remove my shoes, belt and wrist watch. Returning that evening from East Midlands, I started to take my belt off and the security operative gave me an old fashioned look and asked me what I was doing. I told them I had to remove it that morning, as well as my watch. They just shook their head and let me pass.

Shortly afterwards I watched Moonraker and took keen interest in the scene where James Bond used the explosive hidden in his watch to escape a trap. I then realised why my watch needed to be removed and scanned – they think we are all potential secret agents - Cool.
Posted on: 08 September 2006 by Paul Hutchings
The rules I really can't get my head around are the restrictions on what the flight-deck crew can bring on a plane - seems slightly contradictory that you let someone fly a plane but limit they are able to bring onboard.
Posted on: 08 September 2006 by manicatel
Limited hand luggage restrictions were put in place for a very simple reason. It takes less time to hand search one small bag per passenger than it did to search one passenger with a large wheelie bag+ laptop bag+suit carrier, which a lot of passengers previously used to expect to be able to bring on board. This means that a higher % of passengers can now be hand searched with no time penalty. The flip side to this coin is that the airlines must get their hold luggage retieval systems more robust.
As for the walk-through metal detector thing, each airport sets the sensitivity of their machines individually, & some airports set them to be more sensitive for good reasons. Therefore, some machines will be set off by very small metal objects, belt buckles etc, whereas at other airports with lower security threat alert status, the same belt buckle would not set it off.
As Paul says, the only thing a pilot needs to bring down his airliner is in his head, but everyone must comply with safety regs, no one is above the law. Even pilots!
matt.
Posted on: 08 September 2006 by Jagdeep
Don't torture yourselves mates,
you can't fight it.
I fly at least once a week, long haul & short hops and ... just let them do their job.

Absolutely no point arguing. thank god I fly out of Singapore, where they are much more practical.

Jag
Posted on: 09 September 2006 by Roy T
Terrorists could attack aircraft with gel-filled bras but would they then not slip on the KY jelly? Big Grin
Posted on: 09 September 2006 by Tam
It is actually a more profound problem than mere inconvenience.

I was at a concert a week ago where several members of the Belcea Quartet were playing on borrowed instruments because they hadn't been allowed to take them on the plane - you don't really want to put a string instrument that can be worth into the millions (and is often on loan from a charitable foundation who forbit it any way) into the hold to risk mishandling and the extremes of temperature.

This nonsense also prevented Donald Runnicles from bringing the New York bases orchestra of St Lukes to the proms and the Edinburgh festival.

These measures are nothing but a PR exercise and victory for the terrorists themselves. Of course, I expect philistines like that thug John Reid couldn't care less. But you can bet that that laptops were allowed back on so quickly because of the effect pissing off the business community might have had on their already shakey bank balance.


regards, Tam
Posted on: 12 September 2006 by Willy
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/11/gnr_tshirt_security/

I'm lost for words.

Willy.
Posted on: 12 September 2006 by Aiken Drum
Is the affront in the deed or in the perception of the deed?

Brad