Aviation Security - General Thread

[Ray Finkle]

It's just been reported on the news that an Egyptair flight has been hijacked. Apparently it's just landed in Larnaca.

If it's correct FR24 shows it as flight MS181 which is an A320, SU-GCB.

 

[Aviador]

Increasing Concern About 'Insider Threats' at US Airports: US Gov't Report
There is an increasing concern that America’s airports are vulnerable to "insider threats" by would-be “lone wolf” attackers with access to secure areas, according to a new report by the House Homeland Security Committee.

“America’s airports and aircraft remain vulnerable to attack and exploitation by nefarious individuals,” the report says. “Current security standards would likely fail to prevent a determined adversary with insider access from causing harm to an airport or aircraft.”

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/increasing...ats-us-airports-govt-report/story?id=45308790

 

[News Guru]

Terror Treat To Continue To Rise

Bloomberg reports on a growing threat to US airports from terrorist groups Islamic State and Al Qaeda. The news agency says ex CIA official claims the US is under a growing threat which is likely to increase over the coming years.

Read more: http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/...al-terror-threats-u-s-airports-continue-rise/

 

[TheLocalYokel]

The nightmare scenario, and not just at airports, is that terrorists get hold of a crude nuclear device and detonate it. That's been a genuine and serious worry for years and the longer time passes by the likelihood of it occurring increases.

 

[Aviador]

The Sacramento Bee is running a report on the number of items confiscated by the US Transportation Administration (TSA) The article goes on to say that 58 firearms were confiscated in just one week at US airports.

"In many cases, people simply forgot they had items in carry-on bags, the TSA said.

Also recovered was a stun cane at Kahului Airport in Hawaii. All stun devices are prohibited in carry-on bags. A checked bag at the Palm Springs airport contained an ammunition box with three live ground burst simulators, two live M83 smoke grenades and one inert practice grenade.

All kinds of knives are found every week by TSA agents. All knives, including small pen knives, are prohibited from packing in carry-on luggage."

As a non US resident I find it astonishing to read how liberal gun and weapon ownership is in the States even if it is in the US constitution. The article shows pictures of knuckle dusters and other lethal weapons confiscated by the TSA who say the items should be "left at home" and not brought to the airport. It almost makes it seem like it's normal behaviour to be carrying these sort of items around as you go about your daily business.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article138856118.html#storylink=cpy

 

[Jerry]

Sadly I'm not. When it comes to Americans and guns and weapons I'm not surprised by anything. They have lots of responsible users and owners but unfortunately just and maybe even more idiots when it comes to weapons and guns.

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

The British public on mass will ignore security risk. The moment the government declare Sharm as safe; Sharm will begin slowly but surely to re-stablise (look at Turkey). Jet2 won't step in to take advantage till it's been growing for couple of years.

 

[EGCC_MAN]

EDIT FOR CONTEXT: This posting derived from a discussion concerning whether Jet2 should commit to launching new destinations in North Africa or stick to tried-and-tested destinations such as those in Spain. The next few postings were transferred to this thread as they broadened beyond factors affecting Jet2 in isolation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Operators still need to exercise caution in committing to Moroccan resorts in scale. On 28-04-2011 a bomb in Djemaa el-Fnaa, the main square in Marrakech, killed 17 people and injured many more. Tourists were specifically targeted. Of course, since just one Briton was killed (and the rest don't count, right?) our media quickly moved on from this atrocity. Now, we're six years on and life must continue but the notion that Moroccan resorts are an oasis of safety is troubling. The same vigilance due in Tunisia or Egypt is equally called for here. Tourism to Morocco is focused in very specific resort areas and it is well known where these are.

Morocco also has an issue with aggressive pedlars besieging hapless tourists. I have visited many countries and few approach the level of endemic hassle which plagues Moroccan resorts. These pests know all the tricks too, isolating more vulnerable (less mobile) elderly tourists in narrow alleyways and surrounding them in full-on intimidating hard-sell mode. I saw a number of elderly ladies reduced to tears by this tactic. And one who actually bought something in the hope that they'd go away was viewed as easy prey and quickly besieged by a crowd of them. Other tourists (including me) had to wade in and clear an escape path for her. She was terrified. She wouldn't leave the coach again for the rest of the trip.

One of the interesting numbers to emerge from the recently published end of (financial) year stats was that passengers between Manchester and Spain increased by 1.1 million year over year. There is very good reason for that. It is far and away the best 'fly-and-flop' short-haul mass market sunshine holiday destination offered to the UK customer. Jet2.com know exactly what they are doing focusing capacity on proven destinations as they have. They may continue to see the most prudent course as beefing up capacity on existing core routes rather than introducing more marginal destinations associated with higher risk and lower customer satisfaction.

 

[User001]

Operators still need to exercise caution in committing to Moroccan resorts in scale. On 28-04-2011 a bomb in Djemaa el-Fnaa, the main square in Marrakech, killed 17 people and injured many more. Tourists were specifically targeted. Of course, since just one Briton was killed (and the rest don't count, right?) our media quickly moved on from this atrocity. Now, we're six years on and life must continue but the notion that Moroccan resorts are an oasis of safety is troubling.

So, this attack took place and you find the notion of safety troubling?

So, by that measure, should we avoid London due to 7/7 and the Westminster bridge attack? Should we avoid Cologne, Nice and Stockholm due to their truck attacks? New York after 9/11? Paris after Charlie Hebdo and the Bataclan?

What I find troubling is that an attack can take place in North Africa, and as horrible as it is, people then get drilled into them it's a place that needs to be avoided 'it's not safe'. Attack happens in Europe, and we are drilled in 'life must go on, visit these places and show the terrorists they haven't won'.

Yes, OK, European police may be more advanced than those in Tunisia and the likes, but personally, I feel no safer in France than Morroco, the sheer number of attacks taking place in France compared to other countries is a cause for concern for me, they seriously need to get a grip on what's going on, but hey ho, it's Morroco we have to avoid, apparently!

 

[EGCC_MAN]

So, this attack took place and you find the notion of safety troubling?

Perhaps we should instead ask whether you find the notion of complacency acceptable? A member of my family was murdered by insane Islamist scum in an area at the time considered "safe". It is now listed as a no-go area for Westerners as a direct result of that attack. I have spoken face-to-face with ministers and top-level security officials about such matters. My brother received a personal phone call from the Prime Minister with a detailed account of events at the time. I attended the inquest at the Coroner's Court. I have visited the family of another (Italian) victim murdered during the same attack. Lots of information goes unreported with very good reason. The media is fully on board with this as the most vulnerable UK citizens are actually their own journalists, interpreters and photographers. The public don't know the half of it. This is a subject which I follow extremely closely, and - sorry User001 - but I think I know a heck of alot more about traveller security than you do. Call it a specialist subject if you like.

Now some inconvenient facts for you. We're talking a numbers game. Yes, terrorist attacks can happen anywhere. I am supportive of universal vigilance and proportionate security measures across Western cities for this reason. But the harsh reality is that in London, Paris, Nice, Koln and Stockholm you are one Westerner amongst millions. The odds of you being the unlucky one are pretty low. That's brutal but it's a statistical fact. Now consider British tourists visiting a North African country. There may only be afew hundred in a country such as Morocco or Tunisia at any one time. And they're concentrated together in a handful of well-known popular resorts. Be assured, those demonic excrementalist groups know exactly where to find them. Are you under the illusion that Sharm-el-Sheik and Port el Kantouai were selected at random? Of course not. Those are the places where tourists are herded together. Easy pickings. Your odds of being affected if you are one amongst afew hundred there is very different than if you are one amongst ten million in London. Do the maths. You should feel safer in France than amongst afew hundred British tourists in a North African resort where police will go into hiding to protect their own hides when trouble arises. Remind me ... did the heroic PC Palmer do that? No, and that's why some countries really are safer than others.

hey ho, it's Morroco we have to avoid, apparently!

So ... you just accused me of being patronising in another thread and then you come out with that? Seriously? Let me put it bluntly. Following the collapse of Ghadaffi's regime in Libya, his armoury fell in to the hands of undesirables across the Maghreb. Availability of AK47's and other sophisticated weaponry has proliferated amongst Excrementalist groups in the region. It is easy for highly-motivated scum with a burning hatred of all things western to get their hands on them. So my advice is that YES, you should visit North African resorts with your eyes wide open on matters pertaining to security. Sorry if that jars with your complacent PC narrative. But I sincerely hope that you never receive a phonecall from the PM telling you exactly what happened to one of yours. My family has been on the front pages around the world. I know first-hand what it is like to be inside a house with BBC, ITV and Sky News cameras pointed at the windows. So yes. It can happen to people like you.

Don't be complacent. Consult FCO advice before travel. Be aware. Make sure the people you care about know exactly what the risks are before they choose a destination. Bad things really do happen. Take all sensible precautions. Stay safe. Your complacency is the terrorist's best friend.

 

[User001]

EGCC_MAN,

I think you've completely mis understood what I have said, but I still disagree with the premise of your argument.

However, that is the only response I will give on it, as Clearly this is an emotive issue for you, and I understand that when you are personally involved, but there is no need to be so damned aggressive about it. Sometimes people won't have the same opinion as you, that's fine, but let's not go down the whole 'I know better than you so shut up' approach, which is essentially what your post comes across as, whether intended or not.

As seen as this is the second heated interaction in the same day, I think it's best for the sake of the forum we don't respond to each other going forward, as it's not fair to drag the forum down the pprune path. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong, admission of guilt or not, let's just leave it there.

 

[EGCC_MAN]

I think you've completely mis understood what I have said

I assure you I didn't.

I still disagree with the premise of your argument.

That is your right however ill-judged it may be.

that is the only response I will give on it, as Clearly this is an emotive issue for you

No need to back off on my account. I'm no tearful shrinking violet. On the contrary, I'm very keen to educate the travelling public on matters of personal security at every opportunity. Knowledge is a life-saver. Spread the word. Raise awareness. If you have something to say about this, bring it on.

let's not go down the whole 'I know better than you so shut up' approach, which is essentially what your post comes across as

If I were inclined towards aggressive responses as you suggest I'd have a field-day with this. Did you actually read what I wrote? We all have areas of personal specialist expertise ... I acknowledge that you do too. But this topic is very much one of mine and, sorry to say, but it very clearly isn't one of yours. Have you paused to consider that when something like this happens to your own you really do get to know rather more about the subject than Joe Public? Or do you believe that you know more than everyone else here about every topic raised regardless of circumstance?

there is no need to be so damned aggressive about it

I have news for you. Terrorists are aggressive. The response to the threat they pose needs to reflect that. There is a need to make people aware of the risks. To jolt them out of their complacency. The message has to be put out there. We may not like to dwell on such topics but we do need to be acutely aware of them. We need to discuss them. BTW, I reject your suggestion that my response was in any way aggressive towards you personally. And don't forget, it was yourself who out-of-the-blue called my innocuous post in another thread patronising, so exactly who is out to raise hackles here? As for this is the second heated interaction in the same day, my reply to you on the other thread calmly dismissed your accusation of being patronising. Nothing "heated" about that at all. Maybe you expected me not to respond to your provocation? If you don't wish to drag the forum down the PPRuNe path, may I suggest that you desist from labelling other people's perfectly valid postings as patronising when such comment is entirely unwarranted?

"admission of guilt"

What has "admission of guilt" got to do with this?

"Let's just leave it there."

That is your instinctive response whenever a debate doesn't go quite the way you want from the outset. You prefer to pretend that the discussion didn't happen. Well, debate is healthy. It's a good thing. Especially when it educates people to better consider their personal safety when travelling abroad. I assure you that I don't need to be sheltered from this "emotive" topic. So don't spare my feelings (I see you aren't doing anyway!). I'm very happy indeed to spread awareness. I'll discuss travel security as long as you want.

 

[Aviador]

Guys, I've undeleted your posts and moved them to the security thread in the aviation industry forum. Please keep civilised although I respect it must be a very sore topic for EGCC_MAN for obvious reasons.

It is my personal belief that it is just as dangerous here in the UK as it is in many other parts of the world. I've said before, possibly in this thread actually, there are many places I would personally stick away from right here in the UK. I would be extra vidulant in any large town or city in the UK or European country whatever the official government advise is.

 

[EGCC_MAN]

Thanks Aviador. I didn't even know this forum existed until now!

Longer postings take a while to compose so I'm pleased that they haven't been consigned to the ether. And travel security is an issue where awareness of risk is helpful.

As you indicate, terrorist incidents can occur anywhere (including the UK). But there are two reasons why the North African resorts do merit an extra level of vigilance. Firstly, the conflict in Libya which brought about the collapse of the Ghaddafi regime resulted in his armoury falling into the hands of disparate unsavoury rebel groups. These weapons have spread across North Africa and the Maghreb. Serious weaponry is much more easily obtained by Jihadis there than in the UK. The second issue is one of statistical mathematics: in London you are one 'Westerner' amongst perhaps ten million. In a North African resort where tourists are known to be concentrated together you are one amongst afew hundred. Whilst it is uncomfortable to play the odds like this, the hard reality is that you are considerably safer statistically in the UK. Policing is also much more reliable here (as the Port El Kantaoui report has shown), and UK forces have prevented many deadly attacks for which they receive little recognition.

Of course, it is sensible to be vigilant anywhere (within reason), but particularly in countries where Jihadis can blend in with ease and where the juicy targets are herded together in a small number of high profile resorts, or attractions such as the Bardo Museum in Tunis.

 

[Aceshigh]

Well done Aviador !

I for one have found the discussion of immense interest.

 

[Aviador]

I have to say, I have a great deal of respect for both User001 and EGCC_MAN , indeed everyone who uses the forum. I know we can all have personal reasons which can influence our views on any given subject and from time to time discussions can get heated but on the whole we generally manage to keep our cool.

From a moderator's prospective it can be extremely difficult to know what to do and it can be a thin line to cross. Leave a discussion and it can send the entire forum into disrepute, remove it and you can offend those who have contributed at great length to the discussion.

In this instance although I can fully understand why the Manchester Moderators removed the posts, I decided it was in the interests of the forum to allow the discussion to continue should anyone have anything else to add, even if it's just to agree or sympathise.

Security is a very difficult subject to cover especially as there is often no right answer or perhaps I mean there is no wrong answer.

 

[User001]

Aviador,

I'm sorry for my part in the issue. It's taken me a day or 2 to reply, and this may not come across as eluquently as I intend, but here goes.

To me it stemmed from a few issues, so let me explain:

-Firstly, and is often the case, a text based means of communication can often get lost in translation. It's hard to see an emphasis on the words used, and means I saw the posts in a way EGCC-MAN probably didn't mean or intend, but unfortunately, that's how I and one or two others read them. it also makes it harder to get a point across or make an argument less effective.

-Secondly, there is a reason I took to heart what EGCC had said. I didn't respond not because I 'wanted to hide away and pretend it didn't happen', just like him, I'm also pretty capable of being nasty and aggressive if I wanted to, but, it's not my style, but there is another reason I chose to leave it.

He seemed to imply that maybe I'm not aware of the risks of terrorism.

Well, when you've stood 10 feet from a live suitcase bomb at an undisclosed location, and also had an AK47 rifle pointed at your head in Nigeria, as well as being in another location that required armed guards outside your hotel room let alone the hotel, and had counselling for one of the events, then I'm really not as naive about terrorism as suggested and fully aware of the risks. And yes, the stories are 100% true, to which I've never publicly talked about.

I genuinely send my condolences to EGCC_MAN, no family should have to go through what he has, and I'm prepared to accept that he knows more on the subject than I, but, the difference is, I didn't make the sweeping assumption that I knew better and wasn't aware of the risks. Like I say, maybe he does know more, but doesn't make my viewpoints that nowhere can be seen as safe any less valid.

With that in mind, maybe me and EGCC probably have a a bit more in common than first thought. It's clearly a very emotive subject for both of us involved, it brings out raw feelings and probably best to just hand out the olive branch and get along.

 

[EGCC_MAN]

User001 - Thanks from myself as well for contributing the posting above. I am very sorry to learn of your own travel traumas and sincerely wish you well in getting beyond them. Note that I have always had great respect for your expert contributions to the various aviation forums and have acknowledged this again quite recently. I happily do so again now. I was as pleased as any of the regulars on this site when you ended your self-imposed New Year sabbatical.

Be assured too that whilst I am happy to debate controversial topics with anybody I do not favour an unpleasant tone in exchanges with those who argue a different point of view. Taking the example of Fairdealfrank from another site, we invariably debate the opposing viewpoints on LHR R3, but always respectfully and with never a cross word between us. It is a pleasure to debate ideas with those like him. That isn't the case with certain others. I generally take my lead from the other party's contributions: if they come across as indelicate I will be less guarded in return. Unfortunately, reading that one's routine posting was 'patronising' does rather press the wrong buttons in that respect and will draw a more robust response than would otherwise be the case. It is my preference to avoid exchanges of this kind, and if you are agreeable we can discuss the core issues on a frank but more congenial note in the future. My policy is not to initiate personal remarks but to respond to those which come my way. Friendly respectful exchanges (whether or not contributors disagree on the issues) will always be my preference.

Meanwhile, I believe it is important that we collectively recognise the expertise brought to the forum by all members. Many on here are involved or have been involved in the industry (airports, carriers, tour operators, travel agencies) and make valuable contributions to the forum knowledge-base as a result. But I am also constantly impressed by how clued-up keen amateurs can be on a subject which interests them. Some non-aviation skills cross over well also: those with expertise in accountancy, statistics, planning and construction make valuable contributions to our wider understanding of the issues we discuss. So in interacting with other posters I look to recognise and value their individual expertise, and show patience towards those who are new to the subject or less experienced. Only when I perceive that someone is 'having a go' at me will I respond more robustly.

Thanks again for you reply. I still say I'd be very happy to buy you a Vimto and talk shop were we to meet in person. Let's continue to discuss the pressing issues - understanding that we won't always agree on everything - in a spirit of friendly mutual respect.

 

[EGCC_MAN]

Returning to the North Africa tourism discussion, another consideration springs to mind. Obviously, client safety is paramount - the factor which must override all others.

But operators have wider issues to consider also. When that evil lone gunman tore through Port el Kantaoui, it was TUI / Thomson who ended up with a tsunami of legal litigation to deal with. The clients affected had mostly booked with them, so the legal profession sees liability there. Of course, TUI / Thomson have no influence whatsoever over the behaviour of a monster like that, but it is still they who face a substantial legal claim in consequence.

So when an operator such as Jet2 (in our original exchange) considers whether to launch three times weekly flights to [North African destination] with supporting package holiday offers, they also have to consider the risk of post-incident litigation should the worst happen. And even when an atrocity affects clients of another tour operator, they still face the considerable expense of financing an evacuation airlift out of the troubled resort(s) and of refunding the rest of the season to clients booked for future travel. Operators have endured this process with both Egypt and Tunisia in recent seasons. Maybe Gambia as well, IIRC?

Given the alternatives available, one can appreciate why operators may instead choose to add three weekly frequencies to FAO or TFS in preference to launching a programme to a new higher-risk destination.

 

[User001]

In terms of North Africa.

My wondering if Jet2 would start it was based on the fact that MAN in particular had seen a slight resurgence in the market, with RAM and Air Arabia Maroc. The latter is serving Agadir so clearly tourism based.

RAM have had healthy loads so far, and while we don't know if those people are transiting into deeper Africa or staying in Morroco.

While North Africa carries its inherent risks, when I said Morrocco was relatively safe, I meant in the sense it hasn't seen the issues that Tunisia and Libya has, or even had a sweeping travel ban like Sharm El Sheikh is currently experiencing.

Apart from maybe more Greek islands, or perhaps Northern Spain and Cabo Verde, Jet2 is starting to run out of traditional beach destinations they could add, so, expansion may have to come in the form of extra flights. The issue with that is, with lots of resorts reporting high occupancy, getting accommodation to match those flights would be difficult. Even flights may be hard to add, Palma airport for example didn't have a great weekend!