Intelligent discussion about security

Kritchlow

Kritchlow

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
7,720
Display Name
Display name:
Kritchlow
I know many here despise the TSA. That's all well and good, but with the latest A321 Russian airliner theory, should we just sit back and continue the status quo? Should we increase security (read liquids, shoes...)

I know many here hate security and believe it's useless, but in your opinion what should we do here? In my opinion it's just a matter of time before the "bad guys" try to sneak a bomb on a US carrier.
 
In before it hits the spin zone
 
Kritchlow said:
I know many here despise the TSA. That's all well and good, but with the latest A321 Russian airliner theory, should we just sit back and continue the status quo? Should we increase security (read liquids, shoes...)

I know many here hate security and believe it's useless, but in your opinion what should we do here? In my opinion it's just a matter of time before the "bad guys" try to sneak a bomb on a US carrier.
Click to expand...

They did that in 2009...
 
They did it in 1955...




And it worked.
 
While I consider TSA passenger search annoying and is only a marginal deterrent, I worry that the checked baggage isn't being examined as well as it should be. A more critical issue is maritime security. Consider a large shipping vessel with hundreds of containers. Is every container being individually inspected?
 
Possibly very slightly higher chance of death > giving freedoms and rights away.
 
Do I believe there are things we could/should do to increase security? Yes.

Do I have confidence in our government and its agencies to achieve that and not just waste a bunch of taxpayer funds for more "security theatre" or otherwise just screw it up (see TSA audit showing that they were literally completely useless in detecting intentionally hidden stuff)? Hell no.
 
rocketflyer84 said:
Do I believe there are things we could/should do to increase security? Yes.

Do I have confidence in our government and its agencies to achieve that and not just waste a bunch of taxpayer funds for more "security theatre" or otherwise just screw it up (see TSA audit showing that they were literally useless in detecting intentionally hidden stuff)? Hell no.
Click to expand...

Do we really know what we may not know? Could there just possibly be something more than theatre?? I'm not saying there is, but we don't know what we don't know...
 
Everskyward said:
He planted a bomb in his mother's checked luggage. Do you think it would be detected now?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/jus...mom-luggage-kills-44-flight-article-1.1335372
Click to expand...

It depends. What type of bomb? I'm not sure what type of screening they do for checked baggage, but I know they do some. I assume a lot would also hinge on how sharp the agent looking is.

Overall I'm betting the 2015 TSA would catch a "1955" bomb, but like inflation, things progress. Would they catch a 2015 bomb?? Maybe not. That's what concerns me.
 
Kritchlow said:
It depends. What type of bomb? I'm not sure what type of screening they do for checked baggage, but I know they do some. I assume a lot would also hinge on how sharp the agent looking is.

Overall I'm betting the 2015 TSA would catch a "1955" bomb, but like inflation, things progress. Would they catch a 2015 bomb?? Maybe not. That's what concerns me.
Click to expand...
I know they do some, because I checked a bag once that missed the flight because the TSA inspected it. When I finally got it, it had a "inspected by TSA label. I'm sure they were fascinated by the "how to fly a Learjet" training materials inside. I was coming back from training not too long after 9/11.
 
rocketflyer84 said:
There's data on that. When put to a real world test the TSA missed 95% of explosives and weapons in baggage. Not found 95%... MISSED 95 % !!!

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politics/tsa-failed-undercover-airport-screening-tests/
Click to expand...

Old news..
Please keep in mind a couple of things.
They were trying to slip by sophisticated stuff that the bad guys have not yet dreamed of.
Also remember the deterrent effect of the TSA.

Regardless, this thread is not meant to be about the effectiveness of current TSA procedures. It's about what we should do in order to counteract recent threats.
 
Everskyward said:
I know they do some, because I checked a bag once that missed the flight because the TSA inspected it. When I finally got it, it had a "inspected by TSA label. I'm sure they were fascinated by the "how to fly a Learjet" training materials inside. I was coming back from training not too long after 9/11.
Click to expand...

Yup... Got the same notice!!!
 
One concern I have is the problem of theft (especially at JFK). I haven't had anything stolen recently (because I no longer check anything of value). But it was amazing to me how things would disappear from luggage (especially expensive electronics) especially when JFK was the starting point. Of course, I can't prove that it happened there, but other airports (internationally or in the US) haven't shown this problem. So my concern is, if baggage handlers/TSA (or someone) can get something out of bags, presumably they could get something in them too. How much security is there, really, from the point bags are handed off at the check in counter?
Our last case was the day before the Olympics. My wife was forced by TSA to check a new iPhone, which didn't make it to destination. Of course, there's no guarantee the problem was on the JFK end, but these problems ONLY HAPPEN when JFK is on the route.

I also get notices about TSA inspections (not in the case of theft though).
 
Last edited:
I don't want to be safe, I want to be free. That said, disband the TSA and turn security back over the the airlines. Government seldom, if every, out performs the private sector at the same task.
 
As far as bombs go, everything needed to build one can easily get through screening. The perps would simply need to go through separately and then meet up once through the TSA tub barrier. Components and ingredients could then be passed to a single person who could then go into a bathroom stall and go to work.

The best way to increase security is to detect these people before they ever get to the airport. That and allowing passengers to carry everyday self defense weapons, like pocket knives. Since 911 there are several examples where the passengers themselves stopped hijackings/bombings. I think that should be encouraged.
 
What do the Israeli's do? Do we have the ability and will to do the same?
 
I have the resources to get ANYTHING past the TSA checkpoint and carry it onto the plane - as do hundreds of thousands of other people. I can do it by bypassing the checkpoint completely. I have already passed background checks, so I would never show up on any sort of passenger check.

You can not stop what REALLY wants to be accomplished.
 
Kritchlow said:
I know many here despise the TSA. That's all well and good, but with the latest A321 Russian airliner theory, should we just sit back and continue the status quo? Should we increase security (read liquids, shoes...)

I know many here hate security and believe it's useless, but in your opinion what should we do here? In my opinion it's just a matter of time before the "bad guys" try to sneak a bomb on a US carrier.
Click to expand...

Your premise is wrong (i.e., "many hate security").

At least some people recognize how little security is provided by TSA and how much security theater/posturing is going on.

What people hate is the waste of resources instead of focusing on the risk.
 
I think the customer should be given a choice in their level of safety requested. A certain part of every major airport and/or hub can be partitioned for secure flights. Leave the non-secured flights avail for passengers who want them. Frex; You get on Orbitz and you want to book a flight from Dallas to Orlando. Put in your dates, and locations and up pops the usual list of flights, times, and prices. Secure flights are annotated with the "SF" moniker in suffix of the flight number. "AA56SF departs Dallas at 10:32am, arrives Orlando 14:23pm". You click on that, and viola - you are on a secured flight and you agree to the anal probe. For those of us who would prefer our 4th amendment flights we would take a different flight.

Along with this model, I would say that those opting for the secure flight should PAY for their own security, and the cost differential would be reflected in the price of the option. If you want a secure flight, then pay for it, but don't make the others pay for your security because you're a wuss. If you can't find a secure flight direct to your destination from your location, you can charter, or take a bus, or private car, horse and carriage, or you can walk.

The probability of a bomb going off on an airliner and causing another airliner to crash(i.e., my non-secure flight blow up and debris hits yours in the air) is vanishingly small.
 
We don't definitively know that a bomb was the cause of the recent airplane crash, not to mention the fact that we (meaning us here on the forum) don't know what kind of screening they employed at the departure point. So I don't think this is relevant to security at US airports.

As far as my opinion goes, I think making people and bags go through some kind of screening device is fine, but I think removing shoes and only allowing small quantities of liquid is going overboard.
 
I was sitting with a guy at the bar in Cayman airport recently and we got to chatting about some techno stuff, he was from Chi town and I mentioned I used to work down at Fermilabs years ago, and also Hanford WA. Well, we were chatting along, minding our own business, and he asks me about enriching U235, etc. Out of the blue, and without thinking about it, he starts talking about how to make bombs from a power plant. Just as natural as can be. Less than a minute later, here comes security. Ruh-roh. They asked him a few questions and I could see where this was going so I said to the security guy 'no, they must have mis-heard, we are talking about computers, and ROM memory, it sounds like that, but different'. The security guy looks at us with that 'yeah, sure' look and says we should be more careful.

****ed me off, but what are ya gonna do? I didn't want to sit in the security box at Cayman for the next 2 days explaining.
 
Why would anyone try to smuggle something through the TSA screening?

Just get a job driving the catering truck, or cleaning aircraft, or loading baggage, or whatever. You can bring in anything you want. Drugs, girlfriend, guns, whatever you want.

If you can't get a job because you are just a teen age kid (or a terrorist), just hop the fence. This 16 year old kid survived: http://abcnews.go.com/US/stowaway-video-exiting-planes-wheel-death-defying-flight/story?id=23402777, This one didn't: http://www.truecrimereport.com/2010/12/delvonte_tisdale.php

And, those are just the ones that got caught (too late in all but one of the cited examples).

There is no security.
 
Flights departing from US airports have had 100% check-bag screening since January 2003.

Checked bag screening almost always consists of the bag going through an automated scan in a CTX scanner which is similar to a medical MRI scan. These machines are looking for explosives and can clear the majority of the bags without any human intervention. A percentage of the bags can not be cleared automatically. Those scan can be evaluated by a human operator who may be able to clear the bag or they can go directly to a hand inspection.

100% hand inspections are also an option if the CTX scanners aren't available but those are rarely used today due to the amount of time and labor it requires.

The much bigger challenge is the passenger screening checkpoints which are looking for weapons, in addition to explosives, and which doesn't have any technology that can directly detect explosives fast enough to screen 100% of the passengers and carry-on bags. They use the millimeter-wave scanners to look for concealed items under the passenger's clothes and xrays to evaluate the contents of bags but neither technology directly detects explosives. Both technologies are used to flag passengers or bags for further inspection with will usually include the explosive trace detection (swab test) which does directly detect explosives.
 
Larry in TN said:
Flights departing from US airports have had 100% check-bag screening since January 2003.

Checked bag screening almost always consists of the bag going through an automated scan in a CTX scanner which is similar to a medical MRI scan. These machines are looking for explosives and can clear the majority of the bags without any human intervention. A percentage of the bags can not be cleared automatically. Those scan can be evaluated by a human operator who may be able to clear the bag or they can go directly to a hand inspection.

100% hand inspections are also an option if the CTX scanners aren't available but those are rarely used today due to the amount of time and labor it requires.

The much bigger challenge is the passenger screening checkpoints which are looking for weapons, in addition to explosives, and which doesn't have any technology that can directly detect explosives fast enough to screen 100% of the passengers and carry-on bags. They use the millimeter-wave scanners to look for concealed items under the passenger's clothes and xrays to evaluate the contents of bags but neither technology directly detects explosives. Both technologies are used to flag passengers or bags for further inspection with will usually include the explosive trace detection (swab test) which does directly detect explosives.
Click to expand...

Front door is locked.

The key to the back door is under the mat. And, the back door is big enough to drive a catering truck through.
 
Well if you only employed white Americans at airports you'd close a whole bunch of likely security holes. Does Israel employ diversity in their security hiring?
 
Phoenix said:
Well if you only employed white Americans at airports you'd close a whole bunch of likely security holes. Does Israel employ diversity in their security hiring?
Click to expand...

Timothy McVeigh wasn't white?

Who knew!
 
"lets have an intelligent discussion" = PC for "listen to me, for your ideas are wrong and stupid"
 
Phoenix said:
Well if you only employed white Americans at airports you'd close a whole bunch of likely security holes.
Click to expand...
Limit employment to people like Tim McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, Eric Robert Rudolph, Lucas John Helder, Jim David Adkisson,James Wenneker von Brunn, Paul Ciancia, Jerad and Amanda Miller, Eric Matthew Frein, Michael F. Griffin, Paul Jennings Hill, Wade Michael Page, Frazier Glenn Miller, Jr., Dylann Roof, etc.
 
Phoenix said:
Well if you only employed white Americans at airports you'd close a whole bunch of likely security holes. Does Israel employ diversity in their security hiring?
Click to expand...
Good thing it's never been my ambition to work for the TSA...
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Limit employment to people like Tim McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, Eric Robert Rudolph, Lucas John Helder, Jim David Adkisson,James Wenneker von Brunn, Paul Ciancia, Jerad and Amanda Miller, Eric Matthew Frein, Michael F. Griffin, Paul Jennings Hill, Wade Michael Page, Frazier Glenn Miller, Jr., Dylann Roof, etc.
Click to expand...

Better odds then brownies named Mohammed. Israel has a fantastic air safety record, do they embrace diversity hiring? Who are the rampers in Israel and how much do they get paid?;)
 
James331 said:
Possibly very slightly higher chance of death > giving freedoms and rights away.
Click to expand...
This.

Phoenix said:
Well if you only employed white Americans at airports you'd close a whole bunch of likely security holes. Does Israel employ diversity in their security hiring?
Click to expand...

No, they only do it to us here in the U.S. because we NEED diversity.

:rolleyes2:
 
You lost me at 'intelligent discussion'.....;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top