Well I must be an idiot then, because I object to RANDOM checks……
Those folks are a bunch of f**king idiots.

Well I guess I must be a f**king idiot then, because I have worked in that very job before.

Honestly, I really believe that if there really is an additional threat over and above what the standard checks can detect, then by not applying the additional (currently random) checks to everyone then they are putting lives at risk for the sake of cost, resources or time.
My issue – complaint if you like – is that either (a) the NORMAL checks are good enough in which case no one should be randomly checked, or (b) the NORMAL checks are not good enough in which case random is no use either – everyone should have the extra checks.

Many aviation security staff i’m sure, would be more than happy to fully screen everyone in the most effective way possible, but it is us that as the travelling public that would not stand for that, with airline ticket prices going up already due to fuel prices, we would be very unhappy to pay for however many times more security staff/scanners/x-rays, etc that would be needed to effect these standards, not to mention the annoyance it would cause many people who are already unhappy at delays caused by security.

I remember working the very day they uncovered the plot to smuggle liquid explosives onto a plane. I started work at 04:00 and we were told, before the airport opened, that we would be screening 100% of the passengers for the foreseeable future. BAA had to bring in more staff to cope with the workload, had to give extra breaks because people became fatigued a lot quicker, put on free drinks and meals at all breaks to make sure staff kept their energy up and even organised free massages for staff to help relieve stress. So obviously, it can be done. But as Mark pointed out, it does come at great expense. So are airports putting costs ahead of passenger safety? I guess you could argue in some respect that they are.

But in airline security terms we’re talking the potential loss of hundreds of lives in one go…. By leaving the door open through randomness, the people who enact and apply such policies are messing with hundreds of people’s lives. Bluntly, I believe that when I fly my life is more at risk than it need be, simply because the authorities chose not to screen everyone to the same level.

But as Mark also alluded to, are you satisfied every time you get on a train? Or enter a full cinema? Or get on a ferry? Or enter into a sporting venue? Those occasions could also result in hundreds of deaths in one instance should someone feel the desire to cause destruction. In some of those examples, there are no security deterrents at all. So don’t assume aviation security is the only field where security should be stronger.

The random check, by its very nature and statistical probability will let someone through who should have been stopped. How is the risk assessment calculated? Is it calculated? What are the weaknesses of the normal checks?
It all seems very hit and miss and highly unsatisfactory for everyone, I should have thought. So there is clearly a statistical chance that the passenger next to you, who was not randomly checked, is a risk. How does that make any sense?

You are correct in that someone could get through. But again, without 100% screening everyone you will not know. The random checks are there to ‘spook’ queuing passengers – when they see someone being checked when they did not set the gate off they can, and do, get spooked through that induced fear that they too will be checked. Granted some terrorists may continue regardless as they have already given themselves up to the cause, but it can stop others.

The random checks are as random as they need to be. Every 2nd passenger? Every 3rd? 4th? It’s random. You could have someone come through with liquids strapped to themselves or plastic parts of a ‘device’ that doesn’t get checked, but again unless you invest in 100% screening….

those who perform screening tasks are essentially told what to do, and have to do it. It is on that basis I call them “goons”. I don’t care whether you – or they – think what I say is “crap”.

Well, I guess an individual security guard could take it upon themselves to screen every single passenger that passes them. But then their supervisor could come along and tell them not to…Most people get paid to do what they are told to do. Few people have the luxury to do what they want in their employment.

Intelligence-led selectivism, profiling, etc are all absolutely fine in my book as long as they selection is based around sound logic and reasoning and is used as an additional layer to standard security. But selection is somewhat different to randomness.

When I was there, there were talks of ‘profiling’ passengers to reduce the randomness of it, but I don’t know if this was ever implemented. But then, do you only profile a very select few of people who look ‘suspicious’ and let many more people through? More people through than you would by randomly screening?