Airport security no better than before 9/11

poadeleted3

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
2,055
Imagine that. After a couple years of women being fondled, grandmothers being strip searched, government theft of fingernail clippers and cigarette lighters, and billions of dollars, a government report finds airport security is no better than before 9/11. I gotta wonder how many real physical security experts are surprised by this finding? I'm not.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TRAVEL/04/16/airport.screeners.ap/index.html
 
I'm curious what could be done differently. I'm not saying the TSA's oversight has been any good, by any means. But balancing convenience with safety seems to be their primary goal.

Do we sacrifice convenience of speedier lines (which aren't terrible nowadays, at least in my limited commercial experience) for more safety? Are people willing to put up with it? It wouldn't particularly bother me but at the same time, I don't fly commercially that often.

Personally, given our stated enemy at this time, I really don't think profiling is out of line. Of course, they'll figure out a way around that one, too, I'm sure.
 
Do you mean that toenail clippers are really not a threat to the safety of air travel?

I, for one, am shocked!
 
Joe Williams said:
Imagine that. After a couple years of women being fondled, grandmothers being strip searched, government theft of fingernail clippers and cigarette lighters, and billions of dollars, a government report finds airport security is no better than before 9/11. I gotta wonder how many real physical security experts are surprised by this finding? I'm not.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TRAVEL/04/16/airport.screeners.ap/index.html


I say drop the whole program. Any good terrorist worth his/her fuse could get past anything we seem to be able to put forth.

I agree with profiling.
 
Carol said:
I say drop the whole program. Any good terrorist worth his/her fuse could get past anything we seem to be able to put forth.

I agree with profiling.
I think we should leave it in place but ADD profiling.

Personally, airline safety doesn't worry me too much nowadays. On the average 737, I figure the bad guys would need 10+ people to hold back us ticked off passengers. If I'm going down, I'm going down fighting. I may not win but I will be remembered. ;)

I'm more worried about big trucks. Very easy to do an enormous amount of damage with a coordinated attack. Depending on the targets, it doesn't even need to be a suicide attack. Or even car bombs. Imagine car bombs going off at malls all across the country at the exact same time. THAT kind of stuff scares me.
 
Brian Austin said:
I think we should leave it in place but ADD profiling.

Personally, airline safety doesn't worry me too much nowadays. On the average 737, I figure the bad guys would need 10+ people to hold back us ticked off passengers. If I'm going down, I'm going down fighting. I may not win but I will be remembered. ;)

I'm more worried about big trucks. Very easy to do an enormous amount of damage with a coordinated attack. Depending on the targets, it doesn't even need to be a suicide attack. Or even car bombs. Imagine car bombs going off at malls all across the country at the exact same time. THAT kind of stuff scares me.

Yep. Malls, elementary schools, universities, stadiums, etc, etc. The potential for damage that could be done at ground level is huge.

But keep those dangerous little planes out of the area, thank you very much :(
 
Brian Austin said:
I think we should leave it in place but ADD profiling.

I don't keep up on this stuff very much since it's often like a chinese fire drill under the circus tent and the whole game is really irritating.

From what I've seen since 2001, and before, I say forget all the feel-good stuff we're doing and hire El-Al security and do what they say and follow their procedures. They're based in terroistville and I don't recall a single significant incident with their planes in a really long time (1970's maybe?? can't remember) so they have to be doing something right.

Brian Austin said:
I'm more worried about big trucks. Very easy to do an enormous amount of damage with a coordinated attack. Depending on the targets, it doesn't even need to be a suicide attack. Or even car bombs. Imagine car bombs going off at malls all across the country at the exact same time. THAT kind of stuff scares me.

Me too. Including schools, etc. Cars and trucks that are suspiciously parked by casual passing glance at those places are 100% invisible to everyone in this society..until the kaboom. Terrorists are pretty good at catching us with our pants down around our ankles...
 
James_Dean said:
Do you mean that toenail clippers are really not a threat to the safety of air travel?

I, for one, am shocked!

They actually ARE a threat to air safety (especially the "magnum"ones) but one they've decided they'll risk for the time being.
 
Brian Austin said:
I'm curious what could be done differently.

Look for the bad guys. In other words profiling. If a bunch of old gray
haired white guys had been hijacking planes .. then it would be reasonable
for them to give me extra attention. If you watch the lines and who
they're pulling aside .. it's a joke. We can have PC or security .. not
both. We need Israel training our screeners.
 
Joe Williams said:
Imagine that. After a couple years of women being fondled, grandmothers being strip searched, government theft of fingernail clippers and cigarette lighters, and billions of dollars, a government report finds airport security is no better than before 9/11. I gotta wonder how many real physical security experts are surprised by this finding? I'm not.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TRAVEL/04/16/airport.screeners.ap/index.html

Profiling is just a place to start searching at airports. Eventually there will be so many enemies of so many cultures and descriptions that profiling will give way to really complete searches of everyone and everything, plus "Iron Cockpits" and all the other hardnosed, no nonsense, expensive security measures that really make some difference but that can still ultimately be penetrated by a competent terrorist.

And they can always attack by dozens of other easier means. It's so hard and expensive to prevent a first strike that it becomes very important for the world to realize that if we are attacked, SOMEBODY on our list that deserves it, is going to be dealing with the USA a lot more than they probably would like.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
They actually ARE a threat to air safety (especially the "magnum"ones) but one they've decided they'll risk for the time being.

I'm really not being a smarty pants by asking this but,

HOW??
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
... if we are attacked, SOMEBODY on our list that deserves it, is going to be dealing with the USA a lot more than they probably would like.
"...and we lit up your world, like the Fourth of July..." - Toby Keith

'nuff said. ;)
 
Personally I'm strictly opposed to profiling. This goes back to the security vs. privacy in the DNA thread. Just because the people involved in the 9/11 attacks were of a certain descent does not give us the right to harass all peoples of that descent. What happens when they pay a white man to take over a plane? It makes no sense, and is a violation of rights. If we're going to search people, we search everyone, not pick out anyone with a certain look and let everyone pass with minimal detection.

Finally, I've been saying it for a while, but I really think there's quite a simple solution to prevent hijackings.

Two doors on the exterior of the aircraft. One to the cockpit, one to the cabin. NO door connecting the cabin to the cockpit. A terrorist would never make it to the controls of the aircraft, and we would not have another 9/11.
 
wbarnhill said:
Personally I'm strictly opposed to profiling. This goes back to the security vs. privacy in the DNA thread. Just because the people involved in the 9/11 attacks were of a certain descent does not give us the right to harass all peoples of that descent. What happens when they pay a white man to take over a plane? It makes no sense, and is a violation of rights. If we're going to search people, we search everyone, not pick out anyone with a certain look and let everyone pass with minimal detection.
I profile everyday. I think all of us do to some extent. Ever think "women drivers" as one cuts you off in traffic? Or be very watchful around a strange, black man (or Hispanic here in the Southwest)? Or even a strange white man who doesn't dress up to your personal standards? What about the big, burly, bearded guy riding a Harley with the Nazi-style helmet? Or, on the other side of the coin, perhaps you ARE the guy on the Harley: do you look at the man in the suit driving the BMW with a disdainful eye?

In my opinion, protection of our society and culture overrides ticking a few people off. Think about it: when is the last time you saw a 70-year woman as a suspect for a terrorist act anywhere?

wbarnhill said:
Finally, I've been saying it for a while, but I really think there's quite a simple solution to prevent hijackings.

Two doors on the exterior of the aircraft. One to the cockpit, one to the cabin. NO door connecting the cabin to the cockpit. A terrorist would never make it to the controls of the aircraft, and we would not have another 9/11.
That sounds like a decent idea, aside from the costs involved in retrofitting thousands of aircraft. A row or two of paying seats would probably have to be eliminated (existing) or the fuselage would have to be extended (new).

And I still don't think the next attack will come via air. It will be ground-based.
 
Regardless of if YOU profile, it doesn't mean it's right. Furthermore, it definitely doesn't mean the government should do it.
 
wbarnhill said:
Regardless of if YOU profile, it doesn't mean it's right. Furthermore, it definitely doesn't mean the government should do it.
Human nature. I'd bet you do it, too, and may not even realize it. It doesn't have to be for 'scary' things. Ever look at a girl or guy with a lot of tatoo work and think "I'll bet he/she does drugs"? A lot of people do. Yet there is no proof of it. Or the teenage girl that dresses like Britney Spears and is labeled a 'slut' or 'loose'? Maybe she just likes to dress that way. Maybe she likes the attention (same with the tatoo guy/girl).

Define "right". I don't think you can. You're applying a single definition (yours) to a society's issue of dealing with its own protection. What's "right" for you may not be "right" for me. There is no right or wong here, since it's not based on any facts. All we have is our own opinions.

Take a poll and ask if profiling is okay. I'll bet you get a resounding "no, it's not okay". Then take another poll and ask if it's okay to give special attention to young or middle aged Arab males boarding public transportation. Want to predict the answer?
 
wbarnhill said:
Regardless of if YOU profile, it doesn't mean it's right. Furthermore, it definitely doesn't mean the government should do it.
It's not right, but we're not stupid. I mean, who drove the trucks into the khobar towers? Who drove the trucks into the WTC parking garage? Who hijacked all 4 aircraft on 9/11? Who threw Leon Klinghoffer overboard? Who were the hijackers at Entebbe? Who blew up the Embassy in Kenya? Who was recovered from the Zodiac after the USS Cole attack? Last year, who was casing out the first class bathroom in the 757, continually standing in the aisles and going in and out of that bathroom?

I mean, no, the government shouldn't do this. That would be the end of a free society. But WE ARE NOT STUPID. The government and the citizenry is, right or wrong, looking twice a any young to middle aged mideastern appearing male(s) whether right or wrong.

The Israelis simply detain them and grille them, sometimes torture and I'll bet occasionally shoot them. We can't do that. I remember the Japanese California internment camps. I'm ethnically Chinese and the Japanese bombed the family home.
 
The point I'm making is that the government definitely shouldn't profile, regardless of if every single person in the world does it. If we're going to search people, let's search every single person that boards the plane. We have wackos in the US that are just as dangerous as anyone from the middle east.
 
bbchien said:
It's not right, but we're not stupid. I mean, who drove the trucks into the khobar towers? Who drove the trucks into the WTC parking garage? Who hijacked all 4 aircraft on 9/11? Who threw Leon Klinghoffer overboard? Who were the hijackers at Entebbe? Who blew up the Embassy in Kenya?

But who blew up the Oklahoma federal building? Who bombed the Atlanta Olympics? There are more then one kind of terrorist, more then one cause. The problem with profiling is it tries to catch yesterdays terrorist and does little to stop tomorrows. When I lived in London Middle Eastern immigration was encouraged, it was the Irish they where really worried about, not today. Pretty soon everybody would fit some profile somewhere.

No easy answers. I always thought securing the cockpit door and arming the pilots was about all we needed to do, really all we could do. The rest was just wasted effort designed to reassure the public.

And , lets be a little skeptical of this report. The TSA is looking for more funding and updated machines. I know, I know, the idea that a federal agency would play politics with security........
 
Part of the issue is sophistry. What is terrorism? Is a school shooting like occurred in Texas last week a murderer or a terrorist? How about the murder of the judge in Atlanta a few weeks ago? Columbine? Bombing of abortion clinics? WTC? Road rage? I've heard evey one of those things called "terrorism" by somebody.

I think part of the issue is defining terrorism. Once you do that, it's easier to profile. Law enforcement and security folks want a broad definition to get citizens to support their cause. But in my mind, there is some point where it becomes a cry of "wolf".
 
No easy answers. I always thought securing the cockpit door and arming the pilots was about all we needed to do, really all we could do. The rest was just wasted effort designed to reassure the public.
Dan, domestic terrorism (if that's what you want to call the school shootings, OKC, etc are not co-ordinated oversease financed. TSA cannot call upon that fear to get us to fund it. That's a separate category...usually reserved to the local and FBI traditional turf. No easy answer for sure. The enemy is NOT wearing a uniform.
 
wbarnhill said:
We have wackos in the US that are just as dangerous as anyone from the middle east.

While this may be true, there is no coordinated effort to kill us all from a philosophical and religious basis than from the Middle East. I would use the Israeli model. Our worst attacks have coem form the same Arab male profiel. Who else killed 3,000 innocnet civilians in one shot? Who continues to plot against us here and overseas? Profiling is one of the best tools law enforcement has, and because of PC policies the tools of law enforcement are being degraded.

Profiling is good law enfrocement like Marketing and Demographics/Psychographics are good sales tools.
 
Another thing that bothers me about the TSA report is no mention of the work done by GA to secure our end of the deal. We all keep our eyes open. We even nailed a News crew trying to rent a helicopter acting like terrorist. If I remember correctly the FOB had the undercover TV guys arrested.
 
corjulo said:
Another thing that bothers me about the TSA report is no mention of the work done by GA to secure our end of the deal.

IMHO, and that's all it is, this is one area where some folks are creating a system whereby we will become dependent on them. Bottom line: government cannot protect us from every possible threat, nor can it remove every element of risk.
 
This is a response regarding profiling Vs rights. First, you do not have a right to board an air carrier. They make an offer, you accept. Your acceptance entitles you to fulfill the terms of that contract. If you choose to not comply with the terms your entiltled privlege is voided.

To avoid the profiling mess every pax is screened. Then the problem is how to shorten the 20 hours from LAX to JFK. The carriers should provide jumpsuits for all pax. Your normal attire goes into cargo after being searched, sniffed & prodded. How absurd is that? Not any more absurd than not being allowed to profile. If one doesn't like it they can take the bus. Then the security bs can turn their attention to ground and away from av.
 
And we can't forget that our government employee's jobs thrive on inefficiency. So why would ledgislators & TSA really want to go for efficient means such as iron cockpits ?
 
James_Dean said:
I'm really not being a smarty pants by asking this but,

HOW??

Normally, I wouldn't be thinking about it but since I had to alter my life style by not carrying clippers on airlines I wondered myself what the real danger was. Placing my mind (not an oxymoron in my judgement) in a for me atypical, devious and criminally observational mode, besides the obvious threat to one on one bodily injury, the danger to disabling the airline type aircraft became apparent.

Most pilots should be able to figure it out and although I may be being overly cautious, perhaps the details are best not written about in public ?
 
They should drop the whole program. I am tierd of having to take off my shoes for the false sense of security it gives everyone else. GRRR
 
Back
Top