On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:04:50 +0000, Ross
wrote:

The Turkish manage to seal their airport terminals very effectively by
simply having the security check at the terminal building's entrance
doors.

But that's not as "sexy" as new, cutting-edge equipment, so wouldn't
have appealed to either our politicians or the senior security bods.

So what's the door check consist of? A quick glance, or "sexy"
equipment?

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, Laurence Payne wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:04:50 +0000, Ross
wrote:

The Turkish manage to seal their airport terminals very effectively by
simply having the security check at the terminal building's entrance
doors.

But that's not as "sexy" as new, cutting-edge equipment, so wouldn't
have appealed to either our politicians or the senior security bods.

So what's the door check consist of? A quick glance, or "sexy"
equipment?

Maybe a quick, sexy glance?

tom

--
I think it would be a good idea -- Mohandas Gandhi, on Western
civilisation

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 17:27:40 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:



In the UK we still retain the possibility to accompany our loved ones
through check-in and to the outward passport control.

I've never known that.
You don't get past the check in desk without a passport and ticket in
any airport I've been in this last 15 years

I wonder how much
longer that will survive - or is the aim of these new security devices
to ensure that we will always have that freedom?

In message , at 19:02:51 on
Sun, 15 Jan 2006, AlanG remarked:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 17:27:40 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In the UK we still retain the possibility to accompany our loved ones
through check-in and to the outward passport control.

I've never known that.
You don't get past the check in desk without a passport and ticket in
any airport I've been in this last 15 years

The only exceptions I've found are some American airlines who want to
ask passengers their security questions "did you pack this bag..." and
so on, as they join the check-in queue rather than when they get to the
desk. In those cases you have to wait nearby while they check in, but
can still be with them most of the time until they join the passport
control queue.
--
Roland Perry

Graeme Wall wrote:
In message . com
wrote:


Roger wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
"Steve" wrote in message
...
But, why would you want to object if you have nothing to hide?

If you think that gimmicks and a waste of money like that is going to make
you safer, then you need to be fleeced of even more money, to pay the
clever
people fleecing you.

These scanners are a complete waste of time and money!
What are they trying to achieve?

They are trying them out in a "dirty" environment where there are large
variations in temperature, humidity,airborne particulates and
electrical interference. Things not present in an airport departure
lounge. If technical bits work out, then there is the possibility of
employing them on the exterior of airport buildings, and various public
transport venues that are more easily "sealable". Paddington was chosen
because it has a lot of diesel trains using it. It is no more than a
technical trial. Amazing how a simple trial of a bit of kit exercises
so many IQ's in trying to make out that it is an attempt to seal off
Heathrow or interfere with civil liberties!
Nothing is 100% effective, but if this works scanning can be moved from
the interior of buildings to the exterior. At the moment anyone can
walk into an airport terminal, join the huge queues without a single
check.

Checks are carried out on people queueing at airports already.

The equipment previously not being capable of coping with the conditions
mentioned above. The thinking behind it is brutally simple, a bomb outside
an enclosed space is mostly less effective than inside when there are large
numbers of people about.


In which case why not try it outside an appropriate building? Sorry Jon,
not getting at you personally, but I'm afraid your explanation sounds like so
much retrospective bull**** to hide the fact that the thing is pointless in
practice and the only object is to justify spending a large fortune enriching
the manufacturing company for no practical purpose. Are they going to install
them outside every single public building in the country Every pub, shop,
council office, MacDonalds and so on? If not then there is no point in
installing any of them. As for Paddington having a large number of diesel
trains using it, how many diesel vehicles would pass one outside T2, along
with all the kerosene fumes from the aircraft?

The Paddington trial is just one of several that will be tried at other
locations. The idea of doing it at Paddington was to check how reliable
the equipment was in such conditions and being a prototype is bulkier
than the proposed final design. Hardly retrospective, this was public
knowledge months ago and was even mentioned here. If McDonalds want one
they can pay, in general they are used to protect places where there is
a known risk and public transport terminals and airports are favourite
targets for two reasons. Lots of potential casualties, and lots of
disruption afterwards. Blow up a burger joint or a council office, two
weeks later it's out of the public conscience. Blow up their means of
travelling daily and it spreads unease. No it isn't pointless and yes I
do support the trial now that I know there is actually a point to it.
Paddington is sheltered from the wind and the particulates linger for
longer than they do outside T2. Paddington also has 25KV init and
electronically noisy trains (HST's, 332s and 360s) By testing in a
worse case scenario outside T2 will be a doddle. Oh, and the makers as
far as I know do stand to make a lot of money as the system is likely
to sell well around the World, and there is very little public money
involved in this trial, and yes I was briefed. Bull**** you not do I.

Oh, and the makers as
far as I know do stand to make a lot of money as the system is likely
to sell well around the World, and there is very little public money
involved in this trial, and yes I was briefed. Bull**** you not do I.

Ah Yes, I remember being briefed at high level about WMD, and I didn't
believe that either.

wrote in message
oups.com...
The Paddington trial is just one of several that will be tried at other
locations. The idea of doing it at Paddington was to check how reliable
the equipment was in such conditions and being a prototype is bulkier
than the proposed final design. Hardly retrospective, this was public
knowledge months ago and was even mentioned here. If McDonalds want one
they can pay, in general they are used to protect places where there is
a known risk and public transport terminals and airports are favourite
targets for two reasons. Lots of potential casualties, and lots of
disruption afterwards. Blow up a burger joint or a council office, two
weeks later it's out of the public conscience. Blow up their means of
travelling daily and it spreads unease. No it isn't pointless and yes I
do support the trial now that I know there is actually a point to it.

No personal as in financial interest or otherwise then?

Paddington is sheltered from the wind and the particulates linger for
longer than they do outside T2. Paddington also has 25KV init and
electronically noisy trains (HST's, 332s and 360s) By testing in a
worse case scenario outside T2 will be a doddle. Oh, and the makers

Name of company?

as
far as I know do stand to make a lot of money as the system is likely
to sell well around the World, and there is very little public money
involved in this trial, and yes I was briefed. Bull**** you not do I.

Why were YOU briefed?

AlanG wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 17:27:40 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:



In the UK we still retain the possibility to accompany our loved ones
through check-in and to the outward passport control.

I've never known that.
You don't get past the check in desk without a passport and ticket in
any airport I've been in this last 15 years


Eh? I've been poncing around Heathrow (T1,2,3) and Gatwick (N+S) terminals
right up to the public side of the secure entrance to departures for years,
including a couple of months ago. Mostly bored whilst waiting to collect
someone or else seeing someone off.

I think at LHR T3, there *may* a sign that may say "ticket holders only" at
check-in but no-one cares and it's open plan anyway, and as I've been
accompanying minors (nephews) or relatives who don't speak English, I had a
good excuse anyway.

Then again I wasn't fiddling about inside a rucksack...

Cheers

Tim

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:04:50 +0000, Ross
wrote:

On 15 Jan 2006 04:00:45 -0800, wrote in
.com, seen in
uk.railway:

At the moment anyone can
walk into an airport terminal, join the huge queues without a single
check. The equipment previously not being capable of coping with the
conditions mentioned above.

The Turkish manage to seal their airport terminals very effectively by
simply having the security check at the terminal building's entrance
doors.

They used to do the same at Bucharest, with the baggage X-ray machines
outside the doors.
--
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

In message
Ross wrote:

On 15 Jan 2006 04:00:45 -0800, wrote in
. com, seen in
uk.railway:

At the moment anyone can
walk into an airport terminal, join the huge queues without a single
check. The equipment previously not being capable of coping with the
conditions mentioned above.

The Turkish manage to seal their airport terminals very effectively by
simply having the security check at the terminal building's entrance
doors.

But that's not as "sexy" as new, cutting-edge equipment, so wouldn't
have appealed to either our politicians or the senior security bods.

Practical answers never do, not when there's a chance of playing with
"sexy" new toys. -(

Quote from New Scientist: The people in charge of homeland security spend
far too much time watching action movies. They defend against specific movie
plots instead of against the broad threats of terrorism.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html