Metal Gear!??!!
"Head buried" means invisible to security!
An iPad-obsessed bloke reportedly triggered an irritating security alert at Sydney Airport in Australia earlier today. The passenger apparently skipped the screening process and instead used an exit at the airport's Terminal 3, which is used for domestic flights, because his head was buried deep in his fondleslab. It would …
Oh grow up.
He's not responsible for the ridiculous bureaucracy that has grown up, not the arbitrary rule enforcement that now pervades our society. He doesn't "work" for the government, but they for him. So ignoring the ignorant rule-enforcers as much as possible, and making sure your contact surface with all of this out of control bollocks is minimised is perfectly rational.
i hate this man
And every other mindless shuffling smartphone zombie.
Really? No hate left for a passenger guidance system that pretty much leaves people to wander where they don't belong? There are also less bright people on board of a plane, people that have never flown before and people whose attention is elsewhere because of, say, trouble at home or family or because they have to keep a large batch of kids in line after a long flight (any parent knows that special feeling of exhaustion).
I'm not condoning the absentmindedness, but long flights do not result on super alertness in arrival, that someone *accidentally* managed to do this raises big questions about what would happen if someone were to do this *deliberately*. THAT's what I would "hate", not a normal human being being well, normal.
"a large batch of kids in line after a long flight"
Know what I hate? Children on planes. I would easily pay double if only it meant that I was guaranteed a 2 foot thick soundproofed wall between me and any screeching larva. 5 hours from Houston to Edmonton with that howling larva of doom made me want to drive an ice pick into my own brain.
I still have flashbacks. Why the hell do people procreate, anyways? $deity what a pain in the ASCII...
@Trevor_Pott
Obviously people take kids on planes because they enjoy paying thousands of dollars to be stuck in a large pop can with their kids screaming for a few hours and smarmy entitled gits like you glaring at them all along, not because they have any other valid reason to be travelling.
You know there's this thing called first or business class, doubt there are many children in those seats, so please do go ahead and pay double, well more like quadruple, and sit there, or perhaps you would prefer to charter a private flight for people with children..oh you won't, well then, might I kindly suggest you F off then, they have as much right to fly as you do.
As for procreating, yes you do have a valid point there, better ask your parents about why they brought such a pompous self important windbag of a 'larva' into the world, shame that.
Obviously people take kids on planes because they enjoy paying thousands of dollars to be stuck in a large pop can with their kids screaming for a few hours and smarmy entitled gits like you glaring at them all along, not because they have any other valid reason to be travelling.
Quite obviously. Otherwise, why would they do it? That seems to be your reasoning for projecting my actions, so I turn it around on your precious "parents".
You know there's this thing called first or business class,
Funny, there isn't such a beast on many regional hoppers in North America. The best you get is "Economy Plus".
"doubt there are many children in those seats, so please do go ahead and pay double, well more like quadruple, and sit there,"
Oddly enough, I happened to be on one of the few regional hoppers with first class, and it was populated by said wailing and failing larva.
or perhaps you would prefer to charter a private flight for people with children..oh you won't,
No, when I charter a private flight it is so that I can take it my own self to be rid of the children, thanks.
well then, might I kindly suggest you F off then, they have as much right to fly as you do.
Where did I say they didn't have the right to fly? Nowhere. I just said they were fucking annoying and I don't understand A) why anyone would choose to reproduce and B) why they would take their smelly, screaming, irritating-as-fuck larva onto planes.
As for procreating, yes you do have a valid point there, better ask your parents about why they brought such a pompous self important windbag of a 'larva' into the world, shame that.
I can only conclude they were mad. Much like yours, although given you sense of grandiose entitlement and self importance I would also add "soda-mascochistic" to the list.
Your baby is ugly. Deal with it.
Where did I say they didn't have the right to fly? Nowhere. I just said they were fucking annoying and I don't understand A) why anyone would choose to reproduce and B) why they would take their smelly, screaming, irritating-as-fuck larva onto planes.
If you had to choose between 2 hours of flight or 8 hours in a car you'd realise that 2 hours of being glared at by fellow passengers is a *lot* easier to bear..
If you had to choose between 2 hours of flight or 8 hours in a car you'd realise that 2 hours of being glared at by fellow passengers is a *lot* easier to bear..
Why should I give a fuck about your comfort when you clearly place no value on mine, or an entire airplane's worth of people? Entitled much?
Children aren't special, they aren't wonderful and they aren't carte blanche to act luck a fuckbag. I, at least, don't scream at the parents and tell them to shape up or ship out. I do my best to ignore them, save for the odd glances to let them know that I am unimpressed and that as far as I am concerned, they have breached the boundaries of social acceptability.
So I do my part to restrain my hatred of the squealing nauseants. But fuck you in the face with a bronzed goat if you think for one second I should like having their irritating smell-larva damaging my calm.
> Much like yours, although given you sense of grandiose entitlement and self importance...
Trevor, I am a minor fan of yours and mostly enjoy reading your stuff. And I would readily accept that you had a miserable experience. But in this discussion, you are the one coming off as the one with "grandiose entitlement and self impotance"! Okay, maybe not "grandiose level" but surely at "yuppie level".
PS: Instead of paying double, how about a one time investment in sound proof headphones ? I have done it and the spawns of satan don't bother me at all!
A) Because headphones and/or earplugs don't work. Nothing actually blocks out the shrieking of those awful larva.
B) Because not one of you has yet explained to me why "failure to keep fly zipped/legs closed" somehow grants upon the individual in charge more rights than the entire rest of the plane?
Maybe you think your child is "special". Maybe you believe that parents deserve more rights than other people, or that children deserve special consideration. I don't. And not one of you has given me a reason why I should change my views.
As I see it, we're all equal. If you get bring smell, squealing larva onto the plane to irritate everyone else, why can't I have a boom box? Hmm? Or why can't I scream my head off like a child?
I call for a "children's section" in uber steerage. Walled off from everyone else and sound proofed. Where the larva can scream and shit and run around and affect only themselves. Oh, but that's "demeaning" to the parents somehow? Yet you also maintain it's not demeaning to everyone else to lower their quality of life in order to make the parent feel included.
I don't buy it. Call me whatever names you want. It's 2014. Being a parent is a choice. You chose to conceive and birth that abomination.
I don't see why I should be happy that you make my life miserable just because you make stupid choices. I'm not going to scream at you for doing so, but I sure as hell am not going to smile at you and tell you that everything's cool, and that I am totally chill with your decisions to inflict your poor choices on the rest of us.
I have a Sennheiser PXC. I hear Bose quietcomfort is as good, just that I couldn't bring myself to buy a Bose (maybe it's just me, but there is something creepy about buying a bose).
But I get a feeling that you are not really interested in noise cancellation and it's not really about that flight. Maybe too many shares of kid achievements on facebook by smug parents who show-off their spawns just like, zOMG, their iPhones ? Or, an over-bearing aunt who keeps pestering you to have kids ? I know things are strongly labelled in US.. you could either be a family-loving-god-fearing-conservative or a workaholic-single-liberal. Or "a trekkie" or a star wars fan. A nerd or a jock. An alarmist or a denier. Or, "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem" mindset, if you may.
An in-between stance is simply a show of a weak character. Slowly, your victories become primary and happiness is just a distant secondary goal. I know, for I've been there but since nobody really takes life advice from the forums section of the interwebs, I'll just shutup.
So Kumar2012, are you saying that, thanks to your screaming kids, your 'rights' to make air travel miserable for every single passenger within earshot of them count for more than the 'rights' of those passengers to have a quiet flight? Why should people pay more because you can't control your kids?
Why not try being considerate and don't fly with young kids at all? Your fellow passengers will be more greatful that you will ever realise. Try applying responsibilities to rights and the world becomes a much better place.
I don't. He made a simple mistake. Security theatre is what I hate. A total airport lock down and re-checking every passenger because one person showed up the security for being stupid highlights the stupid security officials and the waste of space in their brains.
Proper security would mean such things wouldn't happen in the first place. Proper security would mean identifying the person and getting just him to go through security. Proper security would mean ensuring there aren't queues of people queuing for checking but ripe for bombing. Proper security would mean checking those people who are security risks. Proper security means staying ahead of the potential terrorists not one step behind adding new checks after the terrorist has tried something.
@The Axe
Proper security would mean he just couldn't waltz through restricted doorways without being stopped, however once that has happened, unfortunately you do need to check every one because he could have just dropped something off to be picked up by another passenger who already went through screening if this were a real threat instead of the accident it was.
Sydney security officials are particularly anal.....when I asked why they had to screen me and my handbaggage yet again, after being screened at Gatwick, Dubai and Bangkok, I was told by this officious woman that "they don't do it properly"...!! Jobs for the boys (and girls)...
... that you can bypass it *by mistake*?! I feel so much safer knowing how likely that is to stop the likes of Al Qaeda: surely they wouldn't be so devious as to try sneaking through the unguarded door? You'll be telling me they go through the green Customs channel without declaring their bomb!
Fear not James, it will be fixed. After the underpant bomber was escorted through security at Amsterdam airport our erstwhile political elite announced that we would be purchasing the full body male sterilisation machines from the same MI complex that had just failed in the Netherlands. Recently when a terrorist, or at least someone of the same skin tone as one, passed through Sydney airport on his brother's passport our current political elite announced BIO Id to be deployed in airports. Now that this fiendishly clever young man who is not of Middle Eastern appearance and does not look up to trigger the facial recognition scanners has revealed a hitherto unthought of attack vector - wander through an unlocked door - we can expect our chicken hawk PM to come down on us with some serious inconvenience to once again cover for the ineptitude of the public sector in this country and the lies which comprise the official narrative of the resource wars.
A pity that. A least bill the lad for all the money spent (delayed flights, whatever emergency services were called, and some compensation for the passengers who had put up with all the BS). Or maybe just make HIM smash his iDevice using a large hammer and do it in the middle of the terminal for all to see.
"bill the lad for all the money spent" - It wasn't his fault that someone designed the security barrier with a hole in it. Bill the security officials who didn't put a guard there to say, "Oi, you! You're not allowed that way!" and give them a good talking too.
Ok... bill both him and security. Him for being immersed in iDeviceLand and going back to the plane for something he forgot and I guess he forgot he had to go through security again? And them for having a hole in their security.
What has become of personal accountability? Everyone knows you have to go through security to get to the airplane. To not be paying attention in that area is sheer folly.
Absolutely. He was lucky that the executive arm of a representative democracy didn't act with completely disproportionate munitions-enabled violence for a routine event that in and of itself does not imply any risk or intent.
At least we know which side you're on.
You may criticise it as much as you want, but airport security works. I've been a terrorist for decades, since I was out of diapers in fact, and they stop me every time I go to an airport, intending to board a flight, and successfully prevent me from committing unspeakable acts of terrorism. I have no hat, but I take my belt off to these proud men and women.
This post has been deleted by its author
Before tablet computers were invented, the trick for being invisible in a working environment was to carry a clipboard.
It still works, at least in software factory environments. Actually, a fondleslab is seen as the equivalent of carrying a newspaper under the armpit...
It's always amazed me at how apparently easy it would appear to be to walk in through the exit route at most airports. Now I've always assumed there was someone watching on CCTV, and I have been through a couple of airports where a real person appeared to be watching the flow, but this just goes to show that there are substantial gaps in the system.
Large revolving doors that only permit a one way flow would solve the problem :)
So they're just hoping that all potential terrorists pay attention to signage.
The guy didn't cause a security alert, the poorly designed system at the airport did and it's clearly not fit for purpose.
Passengers leave fights tired, dazed, may be distracted, may not understand signs, may be unable to see very well (partially sighted), may have lost a contact lens, may not hear or understand instructions, may have cognitive impairment or like this guy might just be lost in a world of his own.
This is ENTIRELY down to a poor design of security screeing systems.
It simply shouldn't be possible.
Correct headine is : Airport blunder causes chaos!
How it is poor system design? People leaving and boarding flights share the same concourse. There is a path for them to exit the concourse into the main area of the airport outside the security perimeter. How exactly do you propose to construct a path that allows people to exit the concourse that doesn't also allow people to enter it?
Short of making it more inconvenient for everyone by having turnstiles, or automatic doors that only open from one direction (which still isn't foolproof if someone isn't paying attention and sees the door open in front of them because someone happened to be coming from the other direction at the same time) it is entirely down to signage, and having some sort of security watching.
In the smaller airport near where I live, there is a hallway about 40 feet wide leading to the concourses. The security is on one side, people who have arrived are exiting the concourse on the other. There is nothing stopping me from walking through that way and bypassing security, other than the TSA drones in the security lane watching. If there was some commotion in the security line that distracted everyone for a moment, I wouldn't be surprised if I could sneak on by.
They probably have someone watching on CCTV, but that assumes he's really paying attention and not looking on other camera to see what the commotion in the line is, or updating Facebook when he's supposed to be working. If he is, I don't feel one whit less safe when flying, because I'm not a moron and know the odds of dying as a result of terrorism are far less than me dying in a car crash on the way to the airport, or slipping in the concourse bathroom and breaking my neck because I didn't read the "wet floor" sign.
So what you're saying is that the security at the airport near you is a joke and only 'works' because the locals agree to let it. Anyone who doesn't know the system and gets it wrong should be treated just the same as someone intentionally avoiding the joke security which you happily admit wouldn't stop the average six year old?
People get paid to implement this?!?
Personally I would prefer to be lightly searched, take any quantity of liquids, not take off my shoes, be able to arrive at the airport 30 minutes before the flight etc. I know that terrorists would occasionally knock one down (probably quite rarely though) ..... but statistically it would not be me or anyone I know. A good risk IMHO.
Of all the changes since 9/11, the only one that will actually prevent 9/11 style attacks is reinforcement of cockpit doors. Searching people for box cutters is pointless, I can sharpen the edge of a credit card for a "knife" just as deadly.
Everything else is just reactive. Someone tried to make a shoe bomb, let's make everyone remove their shoes. Someone tried to make an underwear bomb, let's have scanners that can see inside their underwear. Then, oh wait, people don't like that, let's scrap all these machines we spent billions on for these others that just show us as stick figures. Too bad I wasn't in the security industry so I could have gotten in on this giant gravy train.
I really want to see someone try to blow up a plane with a bomb sewn inside their body, to see what ridiculous response they come up with for that.
"Of all the changes since 9/11, the only one that will actually prevent 9/11 style attacks is reinforcement of cockpit doors."
You forgot one other change. Before 2001-09-11, hijakers took over planes primarily to hold people for ransom. Most passengers would be released with little harm. In this condition, not resisting gave the best chance of survival. The hijackers of that day changed the condition. I suspect most passengers today facing the same situation would actively fight back. I also suspect the hijackers would be dead before they could get into the cockpit, even without the reinforced door.
I really want to see someone try to blow up a plane with a bomb sewn inside their body, to see what ridiculous response they come up with for that.
Honestly, I don't. The very moment someone tries to use a rectal bomb we are all in for a pre-flight proctological check. But with the face covered so as to protect our intimacy...