Bruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5034 posts, RR: 17 Posted (14 years 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1112 times:
In the news today was a report by the Office of Inspector General of the Transportation Dept. shows that security is actually very poor at airports. Between 12/98 and 6/99 they sent inspectors to major airports in cities such as Atlanta, ORD, Honolulu, Miami, JFK, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, and DCA and in 68% (117 of 173 attempts) of attempts the agents were able to penetrate security. They wore average street clothing.
The inspectors actually wandered onto jets unchallenged, and were seated comfortably, and the jet was preparing for pushback when they ended their experiment. In other areas, they followed employees into secure areas by walking behind them thru the doors, gates, and jetbridges, and driving vehicles thru unmanned gates. Here are some results:
Boarded planes 117 times: 86 times unchallenged.
Set off 25 emergency exit alarms in airport: 10 times nobody ever responded.
Followed employees into secure areas: 71 of 75 attempts
The IG says the FAA has been slow to tighten security loopholes but of course the FAA says it is "vigorously" addressing the problems.
Specifically at JFK, they penetrated four times all of which were on terminal areas under control of airlines, not the airport authority. Of course there's lots of finger-pointing and many different reasons. Just wondered what you all think.
Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
Cricri From France, joined Oct 1999, 581 posts, RR: 7 Reply 1, posted (14 years 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1030 times:
This report is a pity and show us that despite of all the efforts it is always possible to break the airport security.
3 monthes ago, we had 2 journalists who breaked ORY's and CDG's security with a factice bomb and desarmed guns in their bags. The same as you reported, they told the captain about their issue once they were sitting on board. Just add that the 2 guys were non-specialists of airport security...
It is a fact, that the security agents are not enough and can not handle billions of passengers individually each year.
It's a shame to know that the customs here in France have heavy scanners able to scan entire containers in 1 or 2 mn but for the passenger's luggages it's much more artisanal.
The main problem is the architectural conception of the airports (incl. enter/exit gates for ground personal) ; such a thing couldn't be possible in the brand new terminals at CDG (2D, 2E, 2F) but always in odd-terminals.
Any other thoughts out there?
A propos Bruce your topic is very old : 10928 and 10 h ago are mentionned for the creation of the topic!!! Maybe the Y2K began... o)
AC_A340 From Canada, joined Sep 1999, 2251 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (14 years 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1018 times:
This is a shame. What will it take to make it better. Last year at YYZ I had some carry on luggage, it was a light that I had bought. It had fiber optics and radiation shields. It looked suspicious so they opened it all up and looked at it. At least some people do there job right.
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12166 posts, RR: 35 Reply 3, posted (14 years 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1014 times:
While I am disappointed to hear about lapses of security, I have to say that the problem is focus. The inspectors could get through onto aircraft and into restricted areas, but I'd say that if those inspectors started taking photos of aircraft (banned by the FAA for "security reasons" - in international terminals anway?) the guards would be all over them. I'm not saying this just because I am an aviation enthusiast. This report is proof of what I suspected. I don't want to see things done just for impression, I want to see things done right. Neither I nor my hobby poses a security risk and security guards with an attitude problem won't get the job done any more effectively than those in the UK, who are unfailingly polite.
This is an issue that needs thought and I hope that the FAA will now do so, not just clamp down to create an impression and pick on people who really pose no risk. And if they don't, I'll be writing to Jane Garvey myself!
Killjoy From Finland, joined Dec 1999, 646 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (14 years 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1011 times:
This happened to me too. This year when I flew to Spain (can't remember exact airport) I was looking forward to taking pics because of the nice weather, but when the plane landed the crew informed us that taking pics in the terminal was forbidden. I of course immediately took lots of pics from the aircraft :-)
Still, the aviation officials (like all other officials, actually) could start tackling REAL problems instead of doing something that impresses the average person the most (not allowing people to take photos would probably sound like strict security to me if I didn't know better).
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12166 posts, RR: 35 Reply 7, posted (14 years 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 997 times:
Killjoy, you said exactly what I think, it's about "creating impressions", which of course, doesn't quite cut it.
I'm just looking at my watch now, as it's just gone 5am and I'm on a flight to Gatwick (from Jersey, UK) this morning, to connect with a Delta flight. I would love to take a picture of a Delta MD11, but I'm almost sure the security staff will stop me ("because it's against FAA regulations") - and this is in the UK!Of course, I don't want to risk not getting on the flight, but it is ridiculous. In Dublin, the same company does security for Delta and the staff don't make any trouble, so I wonder why it is? Whatever the reason, it isn't being thought through.
1stClassFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (14 years 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 997 times:
ok, you mentioned that JFK was one of the airports where security was breached many of the times they tried. so seriously, how do they know that the EgyptAir wasn't sabbatoge, hijacking, etc. im saying that i think that's what happened, how do we know?? i think this is a serious problem and their has to be something to be done to solve it. because if it is THAT easy to get past security, we all aren't very safe flying.
HZ-AKF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (14 years 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 988 times:
Do you really think there are a bunch of terrorists just sitting around on their sofas sayin "Gee guys just read this new FAA report....It seems that the US would be a logical place to be right now." More nonsense perpetuated by the media to scare people. And why does a suicide bomber need a picture of the aircraft to blow it up. Please explain that link to me.
By the way, do you really think a terrorist is going to give his life to blow up a half-empty MD-80 taking the Joneses back to Albany, NY or Jackson, MS? Dont think so guys. Be realistic. It takes time and money for these operations. Terrorist organizations didn't get where they are by being that stupid. Let's face it...terrorists are out there but they are not EVERYWHERE all of the time. Be real.
Bruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5034 posts, RR: 17 Reply 11, posted (14 years 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 983 times:
No, a terrorist isn't going to blow up an MD80 bound for LIT. But there's plenty of places to get on a jet that will take you overseas without being in JFK.
A terrorist could board an MD11 in DFW on a flight to London. Or how about hitching a flight on a Tower Air jet from MIA that will stop in JFK before heading overseas. Security in MIA is horrible. That could happen.
Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens