Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2010 21:41:56 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Biggles on Oct 29, 2010 22:03:32 GMT 1
And at the time when the boss if British Airways shows how out of touch some people are with security matters when money is involved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2010 0:16:59 GMT 1
 Just goes to prove that you cannot ease up on security, the more the better as far as I am concerned. Happy Safe Days Bob 
|
|
|
|
Post by buspilot on Oct 30, 2010 7:14:59 GMT 1
Can't agree with that last comment.
Strange how this "incident" has occurred just days after calls for a rethink on passenger security methods, particularly aimed at US methods and practice being OTT and obsolete.
Also remember that the mid-term elections are due in the US shortly, so Obama is looking for street cred. The US DHS site has a message on it referring to this incident, which happened on a CARGO aircraft, mentioning that PASSENGER security checks will be stepped up.
The alleged threat has only been against one US cargo airline, UPS. It is a wonder that the crash of their 747 in Dubai a few weeks ago is not being linked to this incident.
Remember that "security" is now a multi million $ industry, much American owned, which would be much affected if present systems/regulations were reviewed and/or scrapped.
Next week also brings with it the 5th November
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2010 7:55:04 GMT 1
Buspilot, You could be right, it is maybe all political, but there again I am still happier with good security. Personally I doubt it. But it's all about opinions. Lots of peple do not like the increased security, personally I do. If an extra few minutes standing in line saves my life, then bring it on. These people only need one opportunity to strike- ease off the security and their opportunity is there. Better being safe than sorry. Happy Days Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2010 11:00:40 GMT 1
A UPS 747 crashes in flames in Dubai just after take-off - there is no response from the media.
A couple of 'incendiary devices' are found at EMA & DXB and the western news media goes into meltdown - anyone smell a rat here? I watched the Emirates 777 approaching JFK, but no sign of any F-15s and I was listening to JFK tower too - no mention there either; and no further news re the package that was supposed to be on board.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2010 22:08:54 GMT 1
'Anyone smell a rat here? '
Yes!
Could this also be one of David Cameron's largest gaffs so far. His is seen on TV to be saying that he believes this was an attempt to bring down an airliner. Now, this may well be true but if it is, Saint Obama has some questions to answer. Like; whey after many hours following the discovery of the device at EMA did his administration place the lives of all on board the Emirates 777 at risk. Namely, in allowing it to over fly Canada and the USA before landing it at JFK. Surely it would have been more prudent to land it as soon as it was realised there was a suspect package aboard.
Very Strange!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2010 11:04:48 GMT 1
Ste, I think they missed the package at East Midlands first time around, only on the second swoop did they find it. Also aircraft flying to JFK fly right down the coast. Or straight across the pond during the day. They will also just touch a bit of Canada. Not sure what kind of time difference there would have been from the discovery of the package, in relation to the Emirates flight. There are apparently another 20 odd packages unaccounted for according to Sky News, lets hope one does not land in our gardens. One thing is for sure you will not get rid of airline security now, in fact it will be upgraded even more. And I for one would applaud that decision. Happy Safe Days Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2010 21:08:02 GMT 1
Unfortunately, the discovery of the bomb at EMA and the arrival of the 777 at JFK were a number of hours apart. The jet was also escorted by the Canadian AF through their territory, handed over to the Americans, who then escorted it to JFK. There it was met by the worlds media in what would appear to be a well expected and staged arrival.
The point I was trying to get across was that as soon as a bomb was suspected the aircraft should have been diverted to the nearest airport and not allowed to travel many hundreds of miles to an awaiting press at JFK. I know if I was on an aircraft with a suspected bomb on board I would like to get off it at the earliest available opportunity.
I for one welcome the added security measures and as long as there is a threat, hope that they continue. However, as Buspilot says its strange that this should happen just days after BA called for a relaxation of security measures at airports. Having said that I also recall there being problems with Concorde and an aviation expert appearing on TV stating its superb safety record the night before it crashed. Obviously, like Concorde this could just a coincidence but in my eyes it just doesn't sit right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2010 0:29:58 GMT 1
Ste, I know what you are trying to say, but this appears to be a genuine incident. Just thankfully it was found and no lives have been lost. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2010 0:45:52 GMT 1
So they now make computer printers in Yemen? And a Jewish organisation in Chicago would rather order one from there and pay the shipping costs than go a few blocks down the road and buy one in the US equivalent of PC World?
The 777 which arrived in JFK is parked in a normal parking area, yet it is alleged to be carrying an explosive device? Why was it not parked remotely, as the Delta Aircraft was on Xmas day?
Who is trying to kid whom?
|
|
|
|
Post by buspilot on Nov 2, 2010 8:07:49 GMT 1
The more you look at this , the more strange it gets.
Nothing was found when the aircraft and it's cargo was first searched at EMA. So they searched it again and found something.
The question then arises as to whether the package to be found was put in the cargo between the two searches at EMA, as it had to be found for the "plot" to be seen to run?
The Governments banning of printer cartridges in hand baggage is another strange event. Cartridges with "ink" in them were already covered by the liquids in the see-through bag and 100ml rule.
It is the use of the word "ink" that is the problem as the cartridges that appear to be the cause of the problem are "toner" ie. powdered "ink" cartridges, which are much more bulky and tend to be sealed/resealable units for laser printers and not your Brother style plug in and print, liquid "ink" in ink jet printers.
So is a printer toner cartridge an ink cartridge? The Government have now defined it as "Toner cartridges larger than 500g (17.6oz) will be banned from hand luggage on flights departing from the UK"....... you can guarantee the majority of security staff won't know the difference.
|
|
