Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Airline security is a farce gone too far

This is topic Airline security is a farce gone too far in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000738

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 02-27-2002, 07:59 PM:

Jerry Pournelle of science fiction and cmputer fame will no longer fly on commercial airlines. He states very clearly that he would probably get himself arrested for making remarks to the minimum wage gestapo doing security checks.

I no longer fly for this and other reasons. For you folks planning to fly to Showest, read this to see how you could be treated.

quote:
FOSS: Well, you see, when I got to the airport, I planned on just going through as I normally have in the past. But they had this mass of checkers back there that seemed to hone in on me.
I had on a Western hat, which I normally wear, and this tie, which is known as a bolo tie, and a belt buckle that says, "Dakota Gun Collectors," on it and Western boots.
CAFFERTY: They eventually wound up taking the Congressional Medal of Honor away from you, didn't they, at the airport?

This whole "security" charade is over-the-top. If airlines are suffering from lost revenues and require government bail-outs, one would think that more sane security regulations could be determined and enforced.

The 911 hijackers only had box knives. A person trained in martial arts needs no visible weapon. Locking a reinforced cabin door, thoroughly checking checked and carry-on baggage, and scanning for major weapons seems prudent. Going after nail files and medals of honor is just friggin' ridiculous.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-27-2002, 08:48 PM:

Here's a point...

The guys that hijacked the planes chose Logan, not because it had loose security, but because it is one of only two airports that have planes that make transcontinental flights from the east coast.

1) Laguardia
2) Logan

Hence, they will have full tanks when taking off. (Make more fire when they crash.)

They didn't pick Laguardia because it was too close to the intended target. They couldn't get out of the traffic pattern soon enough to home in on their targets properly.

As lax as security may be at some airports, what the government is doing now only amounts to "closing the barn door after the horse is out."

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-27-2002, 08:55 PM:

Airline security is a tough nut. Some of the measures currently in effect are aimed mostly at boosting public perception that flying is safe. Whether these policies make sense or not can be debated, but I can't see anyone standing up and saying publicly that nail files will be permitted again because banning them is silly. At some level, a game is being played with us and we all have to play along, or not fly. If they backtrack now, you can bet there will be an outcry about lax security (whatever that really means). I dunno. I play the game, nothing they are doing bothers me in the least, and the personnel I've dealt with have all been polite and just doing their jobs under difficult (maybe dumb) conditions.

------------------
- dave
Look at this! His chin strap has been cut!

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-27-2002, 10:05 PM:

What security? All airport grounds are still wide open places.......
Mark

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 02-27-2002, 11:33 PM:

"At some level, a game is being played with us and we all have to play along, or not fly."

Excuse me? Are these the only two options? I'm reminded of a favorite psychological trick used with children to make them think they have a say in self-determination... "OK, you can have a cookie OR you can watch tv but not both, you choose."

You can fly, but every time you fly you can ALSO send a note of protest to an airline or senator. You can call an airline ready to place a reservation and then ask the question "Are you still checking for nail files?" When the answer is yes, you can cancel out. You can write a letter to the editor. You can complain on a public forum. You can privately hire a pilot and get personal service while he or she gets to add flying hours. You can claim under the ADA that you have obsessive compulsive disorder and that a nail file on a plane is "reasonable accomodation." You can ask that no people who have studied martial arts be allowed to fly on the same plane as you.
You can become part of a group of people that demand change or you can obey ever increasing restictions on freedom.

I'll play along with some reasonable and sane restrictions (although never try to take my right to bear arms away). I refuse to play along with personal intrusions and militaristic attitudes that have no logic to back them up. Such antics are invariably jingoistic, socialistic, or otherwise play into the hands of those undeserving of power.

Just my opinion...

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-28-2002, 12:04 AM:

I would be happy to support increased security if I thought that what was being done would actually improve safety. That is not the case with the "improvements" which have been made since last fall, which seem to do very little besides slow things down and annoy people.

When I flew from PVD to BWI in November, I found it both amusing and depressing that the security guards spent several minutes inspecting a can of shaving cream, but didn't even touch my laptop or any number of other items which are more potentially dangerous.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 02-28-2002, 12:50 AM:

It has been 6 years since I have attended Sho-West. I have no intention on flying anywhere until I know the security system at our airports actually work.

From time to time, I read in the Seattle PI and Seattle Times of security breaches that should never happen at some (including our own SEATAC) airports.

The latest was a security guard that knew the X-Ray machine was actually unplugged from the wall, and she passed everyone that came through the gates without inspecting purses and other carry-on luggage.

When a supervisor noted that the X-Ray machine had no power applied, she told that supervisor that "It was not her job to plug it in".

The security guard was fired. Maybe you read about it.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-28-2002, 03:46 AM:

I'm driving to Showorst this year. Through the deseret I will go, begginning at the Old Enola Gay hanger still standing in Wendover ( http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?p=999&gid=609436&uid=454798 ), south past Area 51 and down the runway past the strange Metal Disk storage facility( http://www.area51researchcenter.com/area51/photos.html ), across the Nevada Test Range and through some craters and over some old derelict test bridges that were sorta left standing( http://www.gla55pak.com/lameduckie/june/grable/img_grable_lo.jpg ), and through all the new tunnels inside of Yucca Flats( http://web.uccs.edu/amilton/student/waste.html ) and out the other end into Vegas!( http://www.vegas.com/ )

Isn't the deseret a fun place???? Atoms are way more interesting than moving picture machinery! Hey Paul, Wanna come along for the ride?
Mark @ NEW GTS

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-28-2002, 10:06 AM:

Jerry, re-read my comments. Nothing they are doing bothers me in the least, so why would I waste my time writing letters or protesting? I have other more important issues to deal with. I respect your position though.

EDITED: Actually, some of what they are doing does bother me because it's either ineffective or inconsistent, but that's all. Certainly not enough to get worked up over. I don't feel my constitutional rights are being infringed because I can't carry scissors or a pistol on the plane.

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 02-28-2002, 10:14 AM:

I think we should all fly nude, with no carry ons. It would be alot more interesting and no weapons, guaranteed. Heck, they wouldn't even need to put windows in the plane. Maybe cold showers though

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-28-2002, 10:40 AM:

I think the best thing they can do is reinforce the doors on the cockpits. Good locks and solid doors in place (and in use) would have prevented 9/11 from happening.

Comedy fans should check out George Carlin's album "You Are All Diseased," which came out in 2000. He's got a cut on there about airline security. It's strangely prophetic.

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 02-28-2002, 10:58 AM:

The "security" charade bothers me because control of travel is often the first sign of major governmental repression. The fascist and communist countries of the last century were famous for requiring travel permits, even for their own citizens. Restricting the travel of Jews was an important step in extermination. A military presence in travel centers is just too dangerous in a free country.

Thinking out of the box, there is another way the problem could be addressed, one that seems more dangerous at the outset but would probably have a much higher success rate at stopping all abberant behavior on airplanes.

At the security checkpoint, every passenger with a U.S. driver's license and age of 30 or greater is handed a taser and given instructions on how and when to use it. Any hijacker who realized that he would be immediately cut down by dozens of high powered electric shots would think twice. Tasers wouldn't have the problem of damaging the plane like pistols would. Hijackers tend to be young, and often extra-national. Older people are less likely to over-react and use a taser when it isn't called for. Drunken Showesters would be given squirt guns instead.

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 02-28-2002, 12:07 PM:

Jerry,

The changes in airport security have nothing to do with the government trying to control where you travel. Think of it this way, would soldiers have stopped and harrassed a retired general with a Medal of Honor?

A lot of thse problems are that airport security workers, by and large, are bad at their jobs and are on their own little power trips. Frankly, I would prefer the soldiers, as they are much more professional..

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 02-28-2002, 12:56 PM:

Mark, I am driving, too. Will leave tomorrow morning, and will stop by Robert Goulding in whateverthehellthenameofhiscityis. (Sutter) I'll folllow you back.

You driving your Hog down? If so, I'll pick up the nuts and bolts that fall off and throw them in the trunk for ya.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-28-2002, 02:04 PM:

Chances are that the hijackers didn't even sneak their weapons on-board themselves. The stories I heard say that the "knives" were planted on the planes before the passengers boarded. These criminals knew where to look for them. (Under seat cushions, I understand.)

So that means that the government is "tightening" security at the "front door" and leaving the "back door" wide open. I have seen the reports on TV where reporters with hidden cameras basically walked through the "crew entrance" and hopped right aboard a plane while it was at the gate.

I think a lot of measures are good... Presenting ID; Matching luggage with each passenger; better carry-on screening, etc.
All this junk about not letting cars stop in front of terminals and having passengers take off their shoes, however, is just rediculous!

So what happens when some idiot hides a 6" ceramic knife blade up his rectum? Are they going to make every passenger bend over and grab their ankles?!

I think the security "professionals", (if that's what you want to call them), should focus more on PROCEDURAL security than physical. Who has access to what areas of the airport and under what circumstances can people get in and out?

I kind of agree with Greg... What's next? Everybody naked with their ID and boarding passes stapled to their foreheads?

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 02-28-2002, 02:35 PM:

I jut flew down to Florida and the security at Logan is a littl foolish. I did not appreciate having an armed MP screaming at me at 4 am that i had better have my idand ticket in hand when i get to the front of the line and that i had better check my carry on bags to make sure that they arent too big becase I dont want him to have to tell me. That type of treatment makes ne want to fly. I also got selected for a "random" search.

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 02-28-2002, 05:27 PM:

From someone who is an experienced aircraft mechanic; here goes.....

El-Al (the Israeli National Airline) has the toughest security measures of any airline. It probably would not be practical to introduce their system because of home many hours ~ thats right ~ hours of prescreening check in it takes before a passenger is allowed to board an aircraft! Furthermore, if these types of programs were to be instituted, organizations such as the ACLU would be screaming bloody murder and there would undoubtly be lawsuits galore!

The last time I traveled overseas commerically overseas was in the mid 1980's, and it was on El-Al. Here is what happened on a direct 747 flight from N.Y. to Tel Aviv.

Arrived in N.Y. about 6 or 8 hrs prior to El-Al departure. The El-Al terminal was sealed and closed. El-Al security told me to grab a cab and do some sight seeing in N.Y. for a couple of hrs....kind of difficult w/the amount of luggage I had. After an arguement, they allowed me to crash in the terminal for a few hrs. of rest.

Preparations for boarding started about 4hrs or so prior to departure. 4*8 card tables were lined up ended to end and the passengers formend several lines. All had their turn being interrogated by security...why are you going to Israel, what is your business, how long are you staying and on and on... Furthermore, ALL bagage (carry on and checked) was physcially opened and inspected. All bagage was also subject to x-ray and metal detection!

Two thirds or more of the Flight Attendants were men, and people who you did not wish to mess with! There were also plain clothed security officers attached to the flight.

The U.S. military also had it's problems regarding flightline security, and with the base closures in the early 1990's some bases were closed partly because of this problem. A great example being Norton AFB, CA....

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-28-2002, 09:49 PM:

The air security issue is kind of "glass half full / glass half empty" thing. Before Sept. 11th, airport and airline security was clearly a bad joke. What we now have is a system that's better, but far from perfect. On a daily basis you have thousands of flights, hundreds of airports, hundreds of thousands of passengers, and thousands of airport screeners. Impossible for anything involving that many people and that much complexity to ever achieve perfection.

Then you have to deal with the question "what objects might passengers bring aboard that could conceivably be used as weapons?". It would be impractical to have a fixed list of forbidden items. I think what they've done is try to create such a list, but also leave it open-ended by forbidding sharp or pointed objects in general. Zero-tolerance is the rule. So with that many screeners and screening points, it's inevitable that someone will invoke the zero-tolerance rule on someone's military awards or something else that seems dumb. But either there's zero-tolerance or there isn't. I'm not sure I want those screeners making independent decisions on what is a potential weapon and what isn't.

If we had 25% effectiveness at screening out weapons and such before Sept. 11th, and 75% effectiveness now, then progress has been made. 100% is impossible. So if you measure it that way, the beefed-up security has to be considered something of a success. Also, it's much more likely that an evildoer-wannabe would get caught now, thus possibly deterring them from trying in the first place. The system will NEVER be perfect though.

------------------
- dave
Look at this! His chin strap has been cut!

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-28-2002, 11:43 PM:

Hi Paul,
No, won't be on the Hog. Still too cold up here to go very far on it! Plus, I need the steel in the Blazer for shielding from all the radiation I'll be going near. Look foreword to meeting you there.
Mark @ NEW GTS

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 03-01-2002, 01:58 AM:

Yeah, Mark....Also, the radiation does get as thick as the bugs on the Hog's windshield in the summer.

Even worse, wait until a damned bee gets past your windshield on your Hog, slams you in the face, drops in your lap, and starts stinging you in an unmentionable place. That happened to me once, and I was surprised at how fast I stopped that damn Hog of mine.

Jeeze...that hurt.

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 03-01-2002, 09:24 AM:

"Even worse, wait until a damned bee gets past your windshield on your Hog, slams you in the face, drops in your lap, and starts stinging you in an unmentionable place. "

Uhhhh... Just curious... Did it swell up?

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 03-01-2002, 10:25 AM:

It's really hard to judge how well, or to what degree the new security is working or not, without knowing how many terrorists have been discouraged or stopped altogether. We'll probably never know how many hijackings would have happened without the increased security. Maybe the best deterrent is the threat of what they may find, or who they may spot trying to get on the plane. With all the attention being focused on the security of the airports it certainly must be making the prospect of terrorist activity there, less attractive to the terrorists. I would say that the chances of a terrorist successfully navigating the screening process now are much slimmer than they used to be. Probably the biggest deterrent, however, is that the terrorists must now know that the passengers are not going to ride to their deaths like sheep, as they did pre 9-11. I don't ride airplanes that much, but if I want to, I will, and having to spend a couple of hours at the airport is just a means to an end for me. Besides that, those terrorist creeps will never intimidate me into not doing what I want, when, and where. I'll just be a bit more cautious about it.

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 03-01-2002, 11:22 AM:

"Probably the biggest deterrent, however, is that the terrorists must now know that the passengers are not going to ride to their deaths like sheep, as they did pre 9-11. "

I agree wholeheartedly.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 03-01-2002, 12:01 PM:

Passenger deterrent: How did I forget to mention that??!! That's probably at least as important as everything else that's been done.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 03-01-2002, 01:12 PM:

Ummmm.....Jerry, I'll bet I had the biggest balls in town for a few days...

Posted by Trevor Bailey (Member # 75) on 03-02-2002, 03:48 PM:

Bumper stickers:

I'll give you 100% safety or 100% freedom; You choose!!

The current airline "security" measures are just PR to make the lemmings feel safe.

Arm pilots and allow trained off-duty police to carry on planes.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-04-2002, 03:47 AM:

Unless the disaster movies I've been watching are completely inaccurate, then if you fire a gun through the fuselage of a pressurised aircraft it's likely to be the last thing you do. I don't mind officials being armed with stun guns, pepper sprays or whatever, but the thought of them carrying firearms on aircraft would make me less likely to travel by air, not more.

But the real issue is that terrorists look for the path of least resistance. If you wrap air travel up in security paranoia, the bad guys will just go for something else.

Example: a friend of mine came to stay last weekend, and she managed to leave her suitcase on the train. She realised this just as we were walking down the platform and it was accelerating towards Newcastle. You could get quite a respectable bomb inside that suitcase and if it went off in a packed railway carriage doing 120mph the result would be a pretty hefty insurance claim.

The fact is that we don't operate the same level of security for rail travel, e.g. ensuring that luggage always embarks and disembarks with its owner, which is what routinely happens with aircraft. I accept that with air travel the security is probably necessary because a falling aircraft would cause far greater damage to buildings and people on the ground than an exploding GNER express somewhere in the Vale of York. But we accept a certain level of risk when we do anything. The best way to minimise it is by going after the people who cause the problems rather than restricting the lives of innocent citizens.

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 03-04-2002, 08:24 AM:

"But we accept a certain level of risk when we do anything. The best way to minimise it is by going after the people who cause the problems rather than restricting the lives of innocent citizens."

I second the emotion. That cuts right to the meat of the issue. Well said, Leo.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 03-04-2002, 10:14 AM:

Leo said "Unless the disaster movies I've been watching are completely inaccurate, then if you fire a gun through the fuselage of a pressurised aircraft it's likely to be the last thing you do."

There was an air safety expert talking about this on one of the Sunday morning talk shows. He said the weapons carried by air marshalls use a special type of bullet which is very unlikely to be able to pierce a fuselage. He also recommended that the pilots be armed with 9mm pistols.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-04-2002, 10:37 AM:

Point taken about the modified rounds, but that still leaves the danger of shooting the wrong person - and this danger is made worse by the facts that a typical passenger plane is packed with lots of people in a small area, and that pilots are not (AFAIK) formally trained in the use of firearms.

You have to ask yourself what is likely to be more dangerous - the risk of a hijacking or the risk of 'collateral damage' caused by accidents resulting from defensive firearm use.

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 03-04-2002, 11:25 AM:

I just heard a news report that nine of the nineteen 9/11
hijackers were stopped for screening on September 11th, eight
because they fit security profiles or because of questions about
their identities, and one because he was traveling with two others
who fit the profiles.
After interrogation and inspection all were permitted to board
the aircraft with their box-cutters, which were not prohibited on that date.
Relatives of some who perished are asking for an investigation.

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 03-04-2002, 01:03 PM:

Leo:

In the US a majority of the pilots are ex-military, meaning that they have formal training in the use of firearms.