Definitely a gun this time
For weeks, speculation over whether a gun could or did pass through airport security in the case of the attempted plane hijack last month was foremost in the minds of people. And it was a valid cause for worrying; the implications of firearms being able to pass through airport security are disturbing. Despite witnesses in the plane saying that shots were fired, the official statement was first that the supposed gun was a toy—then we were told that apparently it wasn't even a toy, but a plastic pipe of some sort. Whatever it might have been, it is beyond doubt that on Wednesday, a popular film star and road safety campaigner did inadvertently manage to pass through airport security with a very real pistol and bullets.
What does this say about our airport security? In this instance, the carrier of the gun himself informed the authorities and submitted the gun following proper procedure. But, as he stated later, this lax security could have easily been taken advantage of by miscreants. Why did the scanner not raise any alarm when a handbag with the pistol in it passed through? Beyond the obvious security risks, such incidents also bode badly for the reputation of our aviation industry.
Yes, employees have been suspended, served show-cause notices, and a probe committee has been formed. But this does not answer how a gun could pass through airport security mere days after an attempted hijack. Are the scanners faulty? Then why did we not check all machines after the hijack attempt? Or was it a lack of training in terms of using the machines?
We feel that authorities are still far too lax when it comes to taking the issue seriously. It might not have been a gun the first time, and the second time, the carrier himself submitted his firearm—if we don't want a third instance, we must act immediately to identify the security gaps in the boarding process.
Comments