Constructive thread about Security

Vegas casino style security airside and ground side. Ramp up surveillance at the the gates. Limit physical security check points to pre-9/11 walk-through. But get new technology to replace the old metal detectors.

We have the technology now to do digital subtraction and digital pathology recognition, that could be applied to security while protecting the "modesty" of those who complain that the new scanners are too revealing. Anyone who's worried about the minimal amount of X-ray energy they might be exposed to in one of those scanners really should not be flying at 30k+ anyway.
 
wilkersk said:
Vegas casino style security airside and ground side. Ramp up surveillance at the the gates. Limit physical security check points to pre-9/11 walk-through. But get new technology to replace the old metal detectors.

We have the technology now to do digital subtraction and digital pathology recognition, that could be applied to security while protecting the "modesty" of those who complain that the new scanners are too revealing. Anyone who's worried about the minimal amount of X-ray energy they might be exposed to in one of those scanners really should not be flying at 30k+ anyway.
Click to expand...

These are the type of ideas that should be sent to the TSA. Yeah I know, sending it to the what???? The TSA??? That said, nothing will get done if we sit idle.
 
Two highly vetted individual that sit in the back of the plane on every flight. All passengers sign waivers stating they will not sue the airlines based on the conduct of the two individuals. Make it federal law preventing said lawsuit. At their discretion, the two vetted individuals may depressurize the cabin or reduce oxygen levels in order to put everyone to sleep until the issue is resolved.

No more grope a thons or blue shirts.
 
EdFred said:
Two highly vetted individual that sit in the back of the plane on every flight. All passengers sign waivers stating they will not sue the airlines based on the conduct of the two individuals. Make it federal law preventing said lawsuit. At their discretion, the two vetted individuals may depressurize the cabin or reduce oxygen levels in order to put everyone to sleep until the issue is resolved.

No more grope a thons or blue shirts.
Click to expand...
lol!!! And the crew??? And the bomb in the overhead??
 
Kritchlow said:
lol!!! And the crew??? And the bomb in the overhead??
Click to expand...

What bomb? Carry ons go through a xray. And the guys wearing dork bars have masks just like they do now. Who cares if the trolley dollies pass out.

So much for being this thread being constructive.
 
EdFred said:
What bomb? Carry ons go through a xray. And the guys wearing dork bars have masks just like they do now. Who cares if the trolley dollies pass out.
Click to expand...
Hmm.. Guys with the dork bars? Guess that's me?? Still someone needs to let us dorks know to put the masks on.
 
N801BH said:
Agreed....

I am amazed that weakness has not been exploited...
Click to expand...

It has been many times but so far has been caught prior to catastrophic events. You will never hear of it because it is freighters involved.
 
X ray the bags and carry on luggage, everybody steps through a metal detector and that's it. Reinforced cockpit doors and a vigilant passenger population are more than sufficient.

911 would've never happened if the pax knew what the terrorists were going to do.
 
Kritchlow said:
If black came in 80% of the time at the roulette wheel, guess which color I'd be betting on..??
Click to expand...

And then when that other 20% happened and you bet it all, you'd be regretting your choice to go with black all the time.
 
steingar said:
X ray the bags and carry on luggage, everybody steps through a metal detector and that's it. Reinforced cockpit doors and a vigilant passenger population are more than sufficient.
Click to expand...
How does that prevent someone from getting explosives through? The metal detectors can't detect explosives.
 
Larry in TN said:
How does that prevent someone from getting explosives through? The metal detectors can't detect explosives.
Click to expand...

It doesn't and you can't. The TSA can't do it as it is. Again, I'll rely on passengers. The underwear bomber and the shoe bomber failed in their missions because the folks around them didn't want to be blown up. Good enough for me.
 
wsuffa said:
Not true. OKC was not caused by anyone of the Muslim faith.
Click to expand...

How often does that happen compared ot Muslim terrorism? We shouldn't base our actions on an outlier.
 
Kritchlow said:
Still wondering why all the whiners are still on the complaint thread, and not here saying what could be done better??
Click to expand...

You're the one whining about the other thread in your new thread. You have already received several contructive answers and recommendations to increase safety and security. Maybe read those instead of whining about the other thread?
 
steingar said:
The underwear bomber and the shoe bomber failed in their missions because the folks around them didn't want to be blown up. Good enough for me.
Click to expand...

No - they failed because they were useless worthless scum whose talent wasn't big enough to build a working explosive device.

I'm glad Ramzi Yousef and the rest behind Bojinka weren't advising them.
 
And don't forget, the airplanes were not the targets on 9/11, they were the weapons. That's why they chose long distance flights and took them early: more fuel=bigger fire/explosion. The World Trade Center, Pentagon and (apparently) White House were the targets.

John
 
mtuomi said:
Hyperbole.
List ONE thousand muslim terrorists in the US soil over the past 50 years.
Click to expand...

No one said US soil only.

Name one white terrorist that lives in an orange colored house, on the north a street with an odd number of letters in the name, with an even house number in a predominantly black neighborhood.

Enough limitations and you can make stats say anything.
 
I think American airport security focuses too much on "gate" security and not the whole airport terminal complex, as shown several years ago when some crazy walked into LAX and started shooting at ticket agents. Remember, they do go after the soft targets and LAX proved just how soft those areas where. Back in the old days when I used to fly out of Belfast, as soon as you walked into the terminal building, EVERYONE was checked and if you were traveling with luggage, this would be 1 of 3 places that your baggage was put thru xray machines before you got to the aircraft.

While the IRA are currently in ceasefire mode, some security has been reduced but not all.

One other thing, if you flew from Belfast to to any city on the UK mainland, there was always a LEO standing there at the end of the jetway, with a book of mugshots of people they suspected of terrorist related activities.

Surprisingly, they never checked the ferries for the same thing !!!
 
Last edited:
mtuomi said:
Hyperbole.
List ONE thousand muslim terrorists in the US soil over the past 50 years.
Click to expand...

So you are limiting it to the U.S.? Why? Foreigners can't attack us?

In addition Muslims have killed more Americans on American soil by far.
 
Last edited:
Anthony said:
You're the one whining about the other thread in your new thread. You have already received several contructive answers and recommendations to increase safety and security. Maybe read those instead of whining about the other thread?
Click to expand...

Lol!!! You and I are in agreement for the most part, or so I thought.

I have read the responses here, and some are very good.
 
Kritchlow said:
Lol!!! You and I are in agreement for the most part, or so I thought.

I have read the responses here, and some are very good.
Click to expand...

I think we are too! :D
 
Anthony said:
So you are limiting it to the U.S.? Why? Foreigners can't attack us?

In addition Muslims have killed more Americans on American soil by far.
Click to expand...

Even better - list one THOUSAND muslim terrorists, targeting US targets. It is not terrorism otherwise.
(if you count everything as terrorism, you will find non-muslims will have done more)
 
The TSA, which nearly everyone thinks is a sick joke, has a 95% failure rate.

95%

Out of every 20 fake bombs/guns/knives sent through, they catch one.

There are no incremental improvements to that number that would make a difference.

It really is theater - shamefully expensive theater.

I say go back to private security manning magnetometers and give pilots guns and we'll be no less protected than we are now but for a whole lot less money. Full security is and always has been a myth anyway.
 
I'm beginning to think that Archie Bunker is right. Let everybody have guns on board the plane. That way nobody would want to try anything.
 
petrolero said:
...Full security is and always has been a myth anyway.
Click to expand...

^^^This! I believe Ben Franklin said something very similar. And, that was long before 9/11/01, and even before airplanes for that matter!
 
Kritchlow said:
We may have different opinions on the affect of the TSA, and that may never be resolved.

Instead of debating whether or not the current system works, let's get some constructive thoughts on what we think is the answer to a good system.
*Most* of us feel there should be some level of security, and *most* of us feel the current TSA model and policies are not the answer. So.... To be constructive instead of just bitching about the current situation..
What changes would you make? How would you revamp the system?
Click to expand...
What are your objectives and what are your constraints? How do you define success and failure? Who are your adversaries? If you can't answer those, then you can't define the system.

If the goal is to prop up the the airlines by convincing people that it's safe to fly, and your budget is $OPM, then the current system is pretty good. In fact, while people complain about the screening process, if you made it more efficient and less onerous, people wouldn't believe it was working. If that's your goal, the only way to improve would be to stop WaPo from publishing negative articles.
 
Anthony said:
How often does that happen compared ot Muslim terrorism? We shouldn't base our actions on an outlier.
Click to expand...
If we're not going to base our actions on an outlier, then we should just get rid of the screening altogether. Of the more than 12 billion domestic passengers in the last 20 years, fewer than 25 have attempted hijackings or bombings. That seems pretty outlier to me.:yes:
 
I have flown in Yemen where every passenger carried a dagger around their waist and also a domestic New Zealand flight in the 90s with no security at all. In both cases I was not concerned. TSA is mostly for show.
 
Lindberg said:
What are your objectives and what are your constraints? How do you define success and failure? Who are your adversaries? If you can't answer those, then you can't define the system.

If the goal is to prop up the the airlines by convincing people that it's safe to fly, and your budget is $OPM, then the current system is pretty good. In fact, while people complain about the screening process, if you made it more efficient and less onerous, people wouldn't believe it was working. If that's your goal, the only way to improve would be to stop WaPo from publishing negative articles.
Click to expand...

Objectives: Really?? To stop the terrorists from blowing us up.

Constraints: The possibiliities are too numerous to say.
 
I can meet your objective for free by staying home.
 
Anthony said:
So you are limiting it to the U.S.? Why? Foreigners can't attack us?

In addition Muslims have killed more Americans on American soil by far.
Click to expand...

Actually, no they haven't. I left the thousands of Klukkers over several decades out of my post, but if you want to try the"thousands of Muslim terrorists" angle, it's easy enough to correct you.
 
Kritchlow said:
Not sure I understand this. Perhaps I'm slow.
Click to expand...

You listed a single objective. Greg's system meets that objective. If your only concern is terrorists blowing up a bunch of people, eliminate places with bunches of people.

If you can't define the problem, you can't design the solution. If you misdefine the problem, you won't get the right solution. Most people are under a missimpression about what problem the TSA was actually created to solve.
 
Since 100% security is unachievable, what is the acceptable failure rate?

I'll throw out a number: 99.9999999% success in preventing an incident.
 
Privatize security, but make it part of the carriers' responsibility. The major airlines would have more responsibility (more airplanes, passengers, destinations, etc.) but the local regional market could break back in with less expensive security to get me from ICT to OMA since the mid-west isn't really a hot-bed of activity. Then, paying passengers could decide how much "security" they really want to pay for and the carriers can decide how much security is necessary to attract customers.
 
I guess I'll throw this out there: what is the rate of terrorist attacks on US aircraft assuming no (or basic) security? I don't recall many terrorist attacks occurring in the US prior to 9/11, and maybe two or three since 9/11 (which were foiled due to passenger involvement and terrorist incompetence). So, we is it that increased security methods will prevent a terrorist attack once per decade?

I just don't see that doing much more beyond baggage/carry-on screening and simple metal/x-ray walk-throughs are going to prevent anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top