December 25th provided us with yet another reason why security is always in our midst at airports. The failed attempt to blow up a NorthWest Airlines flight en route from Amsterdam to Detroit will probably not be the last time we hear of such an event. Many ‘experts’ were quick to get their voices heard about the reasons why security failed and who was to blame. There are however some uncomfortable truths that many people are unaware of. Namely that the method used by the potential bomber on this occasion was broadly the same as the attempt to ‘shoe bomb’ a flight from heading from France to the USA by Richard Reid several years ago. The same type of explosive was again used; the very same type of explosive that seems to easily find its way through security checks. What airports will now admit is that there are, as yet, no scanners in existence that would detect such explosives that are well hidden on a person’s body.

This may come as a shock to many casual observers yet real industry experts have known this for some time. They in turn have been battling to get full X ray scanners deployed, a battle which has seen the public at large worried about the ‘ethics’ of such an adoption. Any ethical worries at last have finally been tossed out of the window and yet even full x-ray body scanners, which, by the time you read next months Newsletter, will be seen at all major airports, would probably still not be able to detect such explosives! They would make it harder, granted, yet not impossible for the dedicated terrorist.

Security for aviation has to be seen as multi dimensional. Security via x ray scanners should be the last resort or the last defence for airlines. Real security is needed before the terrorist gets to the airport, regardless of whether this is undertaken by state bodies or via airline security teams. The public have been forced to ’buy into’ the concept of heightened security across the globe yet protecting people appears to be only partially successful. Travellers are inconvenienced by haphazard rules that are different across Europe’s airports: belts and shoes on or off? Lap tops in our out? Is a 70 year old granny flying to see her grandchildren really a potential terrorist? Is the white skinned family of 4 heading to Majorca really potential terrorists? The answer is probably no and no yet the same attention is paid to them as it is to single male travelling with no baggage and originating from (at best) a dodgy country known for it’s extreme beliefs.

Through careful profiling of a flight of 300 people, 20 people may be highlighted as being of a higher security risk than others. Why not give these 20 extended but courteous extra screening and give the minimum security check to the granny and the family? This would expedite the whole security process and ease frustration and annoyance.  It’s not the final answer to the problem but there is a point when security people should devote their time to real security and not pretend security – however politically insensitive that might be.

Mark Thomas

Managing Director

Jamadvice HRG