Innocent "ME" a Security risk at the airport!!

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 11:50 am

Frankly, much though I hate them, the present state of the world makes security checks essential. If you don't like them stay at home and save the planet by making a smaller CO2 footprint.

Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 11:55 am

My late father was a BA captain with over 30 years long haul flying and if he was here now he'd tell you that his most 'interesting' experiences were in places and with people you'd least expect. Nuff said.

I'm with Friday - If routine airline security is inconvenient and time consuming that's too bad really because what's the alternative?

Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 6:57 pm

Once, when flying back to Europe from Logan Airport (yes, Logan Airport, as in Mohammed Atta), I was detained - along with the SO from Hell V.1 - because a latch on one of our suitcases had popped open.

We were led into a seperate room and had to identify the suitcase, in addition to answering about 1001 questions which were placed by at least four different security agents. The whole thing took about 20 minutes.

That was in May 1997, i.e. 4 1/2 years before 9/11.

Is it too late to start a thread about it here?

Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 11:07 pm

no

Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 11:15 pm

Airport security is a joke. The people hired to conduct security measures are the dumbest lot of drooling mouth-breathers ever assembled in one place and shown how to wear uniforms. Any half-way intelligent person could devise a hundred ways to bring down a plane before those clowns had even wiped the dribble off their collars.

They take (I am assured) special pleasure in harassing pilots. A pilot friend of mine had a pair of nail clippers confiscated, minutes before he was about to take the controls of a 300-ton jet with which he could do considerably more damage if he felt inclined. Rolling Eyes

There may be a reason for airport security. If there is, let's get some fully human creatures to be responsible for it.

Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:18 am

I don't like some of the extra security that you have to go through. I hate having to take my shoes off, and few other things but that's because I'm arthritic. Having said that, it's a damn sight better than having my arse blown out of the aircraft because some twat set a bomb off. As for the zippo lighter being banned, I personally agree with that. If Richard Reid (AKA the Shoe Bomber) had a zippo, an airplane would have been blown to buggery.

Master Baiter Joined: 20 Aug 2005 Posts: 187

Eliza,

You were flagged because a third party bought your ticket. It wouldn't matter even if your ticket were bought by someone acting on behalf of the US State Dept (as mine were). At first, I thought I was "randomly" selected for inspection because I fly to obscure destinations. But when a second party buys my ticket, I'm always "randomly" selected, and when I buy my own ticket--even to illegal arms trader central--I'm never searched.

I remember reading a couple of years ago--an author of (Pakistani? I forgot) descent complained about being harassed in airports. Dan Savage, who had a book tour around the same time, explained that in fact, anyone on a book tour faces the same problem because one tends to fly on one-way tickets booked by third parties. His solution was to go early to the security counter and present himself good-naturedly for the inevitable search.

Of course, some profiling does occur. I know someone with the misfortune to have a name similar to a suspected Iranian terrorist on the no-fly list. I believe there is an ACLU lawsuit pending concerning people in that situation--they have problems flying, despite having documentation that they are not the individuals on the no-fly list.

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 4:31 am

I was SSSSed again today.

The people at the California airport were not rude and yelling like the ones in NYC. We laughed through it, and they talked to me as if I was human. (It's still odd having a woman take her hands and rub them all over your body, though.) Anyway - no complaints about the people who frisked me today - still think the ones in NYC could have been nicer.

BTW - for baits where you have to travel....if you send your lad a flight itinerary in the future...put (SSSS) on the bottom of it. Then you can always tell your lad they thought you were a security threat. If the lad googles SSSS airline security - they will find out about SSSS and you will have a good excuse for not being at the airport when the lad is waiting!!

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 5:30 am

Good idea, I should remember that.

The "Not a Terrorist" sign reminds me of this...

"A new tactic of camouflage used to fool the American troops"

I reckon it's absolutely terrible that they assume that everyone has liquidd-based explosives, so we can only take 100mL of liquids. Why don't they just get us to scull some of our drinks first?

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:22 am

I heard a story (I think it was in Fahrenheit 9/11) that airport security made a mother drink her own breast milk to prove it wasn't some chemical. It makes me sick (Airport security AND drinking your own breast milk).

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:32 am

About the Zippos. The are specifically allowed. They are listed as permissible in the main cabin. I now carry a print out but usually do not put my Zippo at risk unless I am PIC. The regs are pretty strange but I do follow them. One thing that I am required to carry for night flights is a twin "D" cell torch. I do that but never use it. Why? I have a four "C" cell mag LED that kicks ass for preflight. I also use a four "AA", 6 LED Streamlight that is explosion proof in the cockpit.

Reid had a fuse stuck in some knock off RDX. He did not know about detonators. Without a first fire, an acetylene torch would have done almost squat. It -may- have burned like a hot camping stove. I've seen C4 used to heat Dinty Moore beef stew.

Edit- I respect Dan Savage's opinion and even used his DTMFA on this site yesterday but he's wrong here. About one third of my flights are booked and paid for by third parties. I've only been frisked once and it was a ticket I bought myself. The funny thing was the secondary inspector doing the feeling up was someone I knew in a professional setting away from airports and the security screener using the inductive wand that got me frisked did not know that concrete has steel rebar that will be detected by a Garrity wand.

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 8:13 am

I personally enjoy the human contact one can only gain from being attractive to an airport security officer. Everyone complains about being felt up by a stranger but that's what I call a good friday night. Very Happy

Baiting Guru Joined: 04 Jan 2006 Posts: 3193

I take it all in a fairly good natured way. The only thing that annoys me is that at the checkpoint there are never any printed instructions, they expect you to know what to do, and they are all different. Some of them require shoes and belts off, most of them require laptops out, some of them need watches taken off, some of them say cash is OK to leave in your pocket, but one wand went off on 1 cent. These days I just put everything in the tray, but I still have to ask about belt, shoes and laptop.

I always check in my lighter and buy a box of matches.

If you hate the security check, never fly out of Frankfurt. You get the whole thing twice.

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 8:59 am

Now let's push this thread towards page 3, shan't we?

Fascinating how people complain about tightened airport security standards when they're affected personally. If something happens the same people will complain about how terrorists could possibly smuggle stuff into the plane and how "the government isn't doing anything to protect us". Rolling Eyes

I do however agree that all those measures taken aren't effective. There simply is no protection against terrorism, ask the Northern Irish or Israeli, and the stuff they're visibly doing to "ensure" safe flights are simply to show the travelling public that "something is done" and to be able to say "we did everything possible" after the damage.

If you don't like what they do take the train, it's not that they surprisingly introduced new airport safety rules yesterday.

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 9:00 am

Tip: If you want to take bottles of shampoo, aftershave, toothpaste, cough syrup, liquid soap, booze, etc onto the plane then buy them Airside (deemed a 'security sterile' area) after you've been through security and you shouldn't have a problem.

Unfortunately you are always going to get a security guy or immigration official who decides to make his day by giving you a hard time. It's part of the joy of airline travel these days and we just have to suck it up.

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 9:03 am

Or don't bathe and you need not take anything on the plane but booze, which everyone knows is cheaper on the other side of security.

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 9:04 am

My 84 year old grandmother was stopped because she had nail filers in her carry on luggage Rolling Eyes

. Got to watch for those Grandmothers, but then thats airport security, and they have to do their jobs. It would be funny if she appeared on "Border Security, Australia's Front line" TV show.

I've just thought up another pointless General Chat thread, worst/best TV show! Laughing

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 9:07 am

The fact she was your grandmother is not the point.

The law cannot be subjective... or else it will be "well, you're white/black/asian/jesus, so you can bring on a fork.... but this guy here, nope, no chance".

I'm with Don. If the measures seem harsh, try to remember why they're there and never again think "well, surely they should have done something" the next time something bad happens. I've been to countries that experience serious crime and terrorism and what their citizens go through on an average day (for security measures) is nothing compared to what you'll experience in your lifetime... but they never complain, because they know the alternative all too well.

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:26 am

I've always wondered why the airlines go to the trouble of supplying plastic cutlery with their delicious inflight meals because metal knives are of course a security risk, yet still serve wine from glass bottles which in theory could be just as lethal in the wrong hands as some $2 boxcutters from Home Depot. Just saying.

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:48 pm

Reaper wrote:

My 84 year old grandmother was stopped because she had nail filers in her carry on luggage ...

Yes, but she could have passed them to her 8yo terrorist grandson during the flight. Shocked

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:19 pm

CORRECTION KD:

8yo terror of a grandson during the flight

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:30 pm

Don wrote:

I do however agree that all those measures taken aren't effective.

I'm with you there...
I just love the way they take away nail filers and then hand out sharp plastic knifes on the plane.
and I guess the fire axe behind the door in every plane is not a secret to terrorists either.... or have they taken that out by now? [edit: nope, still is in equipment list Rolling Eyes

]
or the duty free bottles which make a nice improvised dagger once the bottom in knocked out
etc...

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 9:01 pm

Do you need G3orge Petr0sky to call the airlines on your behalf to register a complaint?

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 9:03 pm

I got annoyed yesterday at the airport. Security were shunting all the minicabs via the car park at the airport but letting the ones plying for hire go right to the front of the terminal. Now that I re-read this thread, I realise I was wrong. I guess they and all airport security staff are trying to strike a balance between preventing harm and making life very difficult. You could use a biro as a weapon if you wanted, but it would be absurd to remove them all from hand luggage. I should not have a problem with security checks, or a lot of the other things being done to try to keep me safe, because that is precisely what they are - efforts to keep me safe. They may not be entirely foolproof, or even entirely logical, but I appreciate the fact that someone is trying all the same.

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 10:05 pm

Personally I think everyone qualified in a martial art should either be banned from flying or trussed up in a straitjacket before boarding. The standard test for all passengers would be a compulsory karate chop test on a piece of FBI approved wood or concrete block.

Off course this test would be carried out before the x-ray, and the medics would be stationed after the x-ray.
[/tounge in cheek]

Innocent "ME" a Security risk at the airport!!	View next topic View previous topic