Read the forum code of contact
By: - 12th March 2002 at 20:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Apron Security
**Copied from a topic by Mongu**
Apologies - I tried to post this as a respone rather than a new topic but the browser was being awkward.
Typical lack of journalistic objectivity I think:
1. Exactly how long and how hard did the reporter work in order to "stumble" into these security lapses?
2. The inference is slightly misleading. The odd, rare, security lapse does not benefit hijackers or terrorists as in order for this to happen such things would need to be predetermined.
3. I actually missed the article - were any comparatives quoted?
4. I assume the airport was named but the airline was not. If the reporter is being truthful, why not? There is no danger of defending a suit if the assertions can be corobborated.
5. In all honesty, the report is hearsay and nothing more.
6. It is not clear what is being used as a yardstick hence it is difficult to determine if the results of the "investigation" are materially acceptable or not.
7. How were the sample targets selected. Was it purely at random (it should have been) or did the reporter hear something - maybe from a disgruntled employee?
Any comments in relation to the above, people?
By: - 12th March 2002 at 20:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Apron Security
The airline which left the cockpit open and unattended was named, I think it was a lo-cost jobby, but I'll dig the article out some time.
I feel the period of time over which this was carried is not relevant to the actual reliability of the results. Even if it was carried out over a year or two, it shouldn't be happening at all. Passengers should have the right to feel safe and cannot do so if what happens behind the scenes is wrong.
By: - 12th March 2002 at 21:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Apron Security
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 12-03-02 AT 09:13 PM (GMT)]Us accountants have a term for this kind of thing - materiallity.
You can not reasonably expect 100% security and anyone who suggests you can is not being realistic. Any system which depends upon human beings will always have a certain number of failures and the task is to limit these to a very small level.
In my own experience from auditing the accounts of some quite large and reputable companies, I know that there are ALWAYS some errors. So long as it is genuine error and the aggregate of the errors is not material then we ususally do not mind.
Usually we set materiality at somewhere around 10% of profit; in terms of airline safety I would expect something like 0.01% of flights to suffer lapes, or better. I honestly think we have achieved this more or less (ie. one noticeable failure per 10,000 flights on average).
Oh - thanks for reposting my message!!
By: - 12th March 2002 at 23:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Airport Security?
I think the low-cost 'jobby' you're referring to, which appeared in the newspapers, was that of a reporter gaining access to a Go-fly 737-300 in the FLS Aerospace Hangar at Stansted*.
* I could be wrong but remember something very similar happening.
It might be worth checking out the Mirrors website ( www.mirror.co.uk ) as I believe they were the paper who printed the story which I found most shocking.
Hope it helps...
By: - 13th March 2002 at 13:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Airport Security?
I didn't think the aircraft was in a Hanger. If it wasn't, then there is no reason as to why the cockipt door was left open... it's crazy!
I understand that there are errors and security is not always 100%, but some of these so-called 'errors' should not have occurred.
By: - 13th March 2002 at 18:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Airport Security?
No, such errors should not occur. But they do!
Posts: 6,503
By: T5 - 11th March 2002 at 20:33
I don't know if any of you saw the Daily Telegraphy (UK) a few weeks back. It showed a number of photographs from around the UK including Gatwick and Heathrow and how vulnerable they were when it come to security.
It firstly spoke of the robbery at Heathrow and how insecure the airport must have been. I wouldn't know about security at Heathrow so cannot really comment and then it went on to show a set of gates leading onto the apron from the outside world which were left open and unattended and the nearest aircraft was just 50 metres (or so) away.
The journalist carrying out this report also caught a flight from Stansted (the airline I cannot remember) and the flight deck door had been left open and the captain/first officer were not in sight. He then had a photograph taken of himn in the captain's seat and no member of crew was actually aware of what was going on.
It's pretty scary behind the scenes.