The most chatters online in one day was 11, 26-03-2008. mts
Security Consultancy Forum Thread, Aviation Security and Bollocks in Close Protection World Area; What a crock, last time i flew through Heathrow (connection) , the "security" staff were sitting on the tables and ...
What a crock, last time i flew through Heathrow (connection) , the "security" staff were sitting on the tables and casually asked me if i had any liquids without me even needing to stop, and now this...
I was once stopped cause I had in my cabin luggage nice little plastic&aluminium extendable tripod for my video camera that I didn't want to get squashed in my main luggage, they said I could use it as weapon, so I said [joking] to the security man "listen I'm a martial art specialist I don't need a tripod, if I wanna kill somebody I can do this with empty hands or choke the person with his/her own jacket" he laughed and let me go through ha ha ha.
I was once stopped cause I had in my cabin luggage nice little plastic&aluminium extendable tripod for my video camera that I didn't want to get squashed in my main luggage, they said I could use it as weapon,
Observed something similar on my way through Heathrow a little while ago where a guy was stopped for bringing a snooker cue (apparently a really expensive one) on as hand luggage for a similar reason that it could be used as a weapon. In the general run of things anything or item can be used as a weapon or an offensive weapon and as such why is it then ok to bring on any item into the main body of an aircraft?
I suppose it falls to the guy on the security check at the time .... cupped with the attitude of the passenger.
I worked in Aviation security and still do on a consultancy basis, there is a list a mile long about what can and can't be taken into the main passenger compartment of an aircraft.
Some items can be used as a weapon, in fact most things can be, just look at what they hand out at mealtimes. Plastic cutlery which in many cases are sharper than stainless steel, dishes made from tough melamine plastic etc etc. What a lot of the travelling public don't seem to get, is items that can have the APPEARANCE of a weapon FROM A DISTANCE are also banned.
I know that a small collapsable tripod may seem a little extreme, but what if you're sitting 20 rows back from some guy that takes it out and starts to wave it about like a weapon, from that distance it's hard to tell what it is, it just looks shiny, and in the hands of someone drunk or mad it looks f**king scary. There's so many things I've come across that at first glance you would consider it ridiculous and draconian to ban them from an aircraft, yet when it's seen from a distance it looks completely different. I just has to LOOK like something nasty, I mean, how many banks, Petrol staions have been robbed with a banana etc in the pocket, a note slipped to the cashier?
As mickworldwide quite rightly points out, the attidude of the passenger is a factor as is the awareness of the guy who is meant to be doing the checking.
I agree, it is a crock, where do you draw the line when anything can be used as a weapon, or when something could look like something nasty from row 20?!
MTS .. I agree that the attitude test maybe sounds a bit draconian and maybe a tad to the ridiculous but in reality it is used by law enforcement pretty much everywhere in the world from disorderly behaviour arrests to traffic violation tickets.
When it comes to benefit of the doubt there is a high chance that the security officer will stop and question and if the person seems to be approachable and friendly then a greater chance exists to gain permission than someone who begins shouting the odds.
I believe DS use this approach a lot in determining entry to the establishment they are guarding.
As regards perception from a distance I didnt think of it in those terms and I suppose that is a useful insight ... I have seen and heard some woeful instances though that border on the ridiculous ... one where a person was made to remove a less than inch sized glock keyring. again this must come down to the perceived threat by the security officer and of course as in most UK legal and enforcement agencies , common sense and discretion are allowed. The t-shirt at the main post I cant fathom other than an attitude failure!
MTS .. I agree that the attitude test maybe sounds a bit draconian and maybe a tad to the ridiculous but in reality it is used by law enforcement pretty much everywhere in the world from disorderly behaviour arrests to traffic violation tickets.
When it comes to benefit of the doubt there is a high chance that the security officer will stop and question and if the person seems to be approachable and friendly then a greater chance exists to gain permission than someone who begins shouting the odds.
I believe DS use this approach a lot in determining entry to the establishment they are guarding.
As regards perception from a distance I didnt think of it in those terms and I suppose that is a useful insight ... I have seen and heard some woeful instances though that border on the ridiculous ... one where a person was made to remove a less than inch sized glock keyring. again this must come down to the perceived threat by the security officer and of course as in most UK legal and enforcement agencies , common sense and discretion are allowed. The t-shirt at the main post I cant fathom other than an attitude failure!
Good morning mickww
I wasn't dissing your post at all mate, nor the attitude theory; rather saying that the attitude, or bad attitude is only one of the behavioral indicators that may prompt a security official to act. IOW< agreeing with you.
Aviation Security and Bollocks
Linear Mode
