Airplane safety

[jdonn]

As long as you can buy anything you need to destroy a plane midair in the duty free shop, all those security checks are far from effective.

ROFL !!.. where can you buy stuff in dutyfree to bring down a plane ?

Well I hope you had a good laugh,

and I really hope that terrorists share your opinion.

 

But don't expect me to post instructions what one could do with items from the duty free shop, to prove my point.

Do you think you posting how to build an explosive from items purchased at a duty free shop, on BBO forums, will instruct terrorists around the world in something they were somehow totally unaware of and lead to an attack?

[Hanoi5]

How about the FBI or other agency reads it, finds hotShot and *puff* no more posts by him suddenly...

[Phil]

How about the FBI or other agency reads it, finds hotShot and *puff* no more posts by him suddenly...

As long as they make a note in the "Deleted Threads / Posts" section.

[helene_t]

Not sure what you guys are talking about.

 

I fly between various European countries appr. 15 times a year and haven't had any problems with security for years. Oh yeah Philadelphia was a pain but that was shortly after 9/11. Tel Aviv was a little annoying, too, but that was in 1984 (I suppose it still is but I haven't been to Israel since). Mumbai last october was full of security but the airport not more so than an average shopping mall.

 

Last week I took the train from Amsterdam to Copenhagen. The police woke me up at midnight when we crossed the German/Dutch boarder, commanding me to come down and answer some questions, then they complained about the fact that I wasn't dressed, searched my luggage, found a laptop and asked me to turn it on. To appreciate how ridiculous that is, note that the Dutch/German boarder is not patrolled otherwise, you can cross the boarder by foot, bus, car or bicycle on dozens of places without seeing a policeman.

 

Then I decided that next time I take the plane to avoid the police.

 

That said, it is understandable if airports take hysteric security measures. Lots of people have an irrational fear of flying, so a terrorist attack on a plane once in a blue moon could cost them billions in lost revenues even if flight remained much safer than driving.

[kenberg]

This topic, like many, can be approached personally or in the large. Person ally, I just don't worry about terrorists and I also don't mind the security checks. I am going to San Francisco next week and I expect a trouble free flight.

 

Thinking in general terms, what should we do? Let be look at some of the questions in the original post.

 

Would X-ray machines, if that is what is contemplated, annoy me? No, not really.

 

Would they deter tourism? I dunno, this could be argued either way. Maybe the extra security would be comforting. On another thread, a poster said he would not travel to the US because he fears he might get ill and run up a horrible medical bill. Maybe I am oblivious to reality, but I don't fret about these things.

 

Would the money be better spent on police work? Perhaps, or even probably. But neither will make us safe. Spending the money on police work would have the good effect of catching other baddies besides terrorists, a very significant plus. Still, if bomb making stuff can be sewn into underwear and assembled in flight I suppose it is just a matter of time before this is successfully done. I guess the x-rays could foil that.

 

I do think that the final argument in the op has a good deal of merit: If it gets too difficult to attack planes, there are other targets. It's going to be tough to mount an effective defense against all possible targets. My wife, in speaking of the difficulty of raising boys, once commented that they can think of more stupid things to do than a mother can ever think to warn them about. Similar case here.

 

 

I found the discussion of Israeli practices very interesting. Here is what I think of as the fundamental difference: Israel, through its history as a country as well as events in the forties, takes threats of annihilation with total seriousness. We sort of do, with the emphasis on sort of. People have been telling us what shits we are for as long as I can remember, shouting death to America and so on. Yes they mean it, but often is still sounds like the same old same old and we get distracted. Israel doesn't get distracted. It's not so much that we should adopt their methods, although I think this stuff of asking questions while looking a person in the eyes definitely has merit, but rather we should adopt their seriousness.

[shyams]

I found the discussion of Israeli practices very interesting. Here is what I think of as the fundamental difference: Israel, through its history as a country as well as events in the forties, takes threats of annihilation with total seriousness. We sort of do, with the emphasis on sort of.

I think there is very little parallel to draw between the situation facing Israel and the one facing USA.

* One country is bang in the middle of the most volatile regions of the world, the other has gigantic oceans insulating it from direct attack.

* When Hezbollah/Hamas wanted to attack Israel, they cound buy cheap ("off the shelf"?) rockets and fire in the general direction of Israel with a decent chance of a hit. This is impossible for a US scenario.

 

People have been telling us what shits we are for as long as I can remember, shouting death to America and so on. Yes they mean it, but often is still sounds like the same old same old and we get distracted. Israel doesn't get distracted. It's not so much that we should adopt their methods, although I think this stuff of asking questions while looking a person in the eyes definitely has merit, but rather we should adopt their seriousness.

I think people aspire for the American way of life. Yes, there are a few who will chant death to America -- but some of those would be against your politicians / policy, not Americans in general.

 

I believe you are underestimating the amount of goodwill that the world has towards an average American.

[kenberg]

Yes, I did not mean to suggest that the situation in Israel is equivalent to the one in the US.

[cherdanno]

I'm still trying to work out the "turn of your cell phones" issue.

 

If they're safe, why can't I use it?

If they're unsafe, why can we have them?

They are safe. (Why else would you be allowed to use them while taxiing, i.e. during one of the most accident-prone times of the flight?) In fact, I am glad they are safe as I have seen someone using their cell phone/blackberry to send text messages during a flight a couple of times.

 

The reason they are still forbidden is that

- nobody wants to be responsible for that call, and

- airlines aren't actually interested in pushing that, as most passengers would actually find cell phone conversations annoying.

[jdonn]

Yes I long ago decided the ban on cell phones while flying is not a safety issue as much as an annoyance issue to other fliers.

[P_Marlowe]

As long as you can buy anything you need to destroy a plane midair in the duty free shop, all those security checks are far from effective.

ROFL !!.. where can you buy stuff in dutyfree to bring down a plane ?

Well I hope you had a good laugh,

and I really hope that terrorists share your opinion.

 

But don't expect me to post instructions what one could do with items from the duty free shop, to prove my point.

Do you think you posting how to build an explosive from items purchased at a duty free shop, on BBO forums, will instruct terrorists around the world in something they were somehow totally unaware of and lead to an attack?

There was a real request by the Germany Police Union getting support from

the Pilots Union to ban selling certain items in duty free shops.

Since hotshot does not list the items they requested from getting banned, I

wont either, but if you want to build explosves or toxic things, it is not tough

to get certain things from the supermarket, it may not be the most explosive

thing, but you may not need the most explosive thing, e.g. Whiskey with a

certain alcohol concentration is burning easily, just to give you an impression.

 

Personally I think this req. was just fearmongering and populistic, similar to the

discussion to use whole body X-ray scans, this all in the context that the try of

an terror act could have been stopped way earlier, but was not, because certain

US agencies, with too much power possesion already, were not working together.

 

There was just one point, I found fairly interesting, but I dont fly a lot to have a

feeling, how real this point is, the last time was ... years ago - duty free shops are

behing the scanners, so what you buy there does not get checked, and if this is true,

what I cant say, than this may be something to reconsider.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Winstonm]

Trivialize the attempt in public and belittle the bomb attempter - make him look the fool. In private, we revisit our visa/passport system and make changes where needed. Then we prosecute the criminal and move on. These are our best moves IMO.

 

Cato@Liberty: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/12/30/...curity-systems/

 

Terrorists are weak actors, unable to muster conventional forces that threaten a state directly. So they try to use the power of the states they attack to achieve their aims. Provocation is an example—getting a state to overreact and undercut its own legitimacy. Polarization is another: Most often in domestic contexts, terror attacks can drive wedges among different ethnic, religious, or cultural groups, destabilizing the state and society.

 

Mobilization is the strategy of leverage most likely at play here—seeking to recruit and rally the masses to a cause. There’s no argument that this alienated loner is an articulate strategist, of course, but his attack could signal the importance of terrorism to a worldwide audience, making terrorism more attractive to opponents of U.S. power.

 

Even a failed attack could send such a signal if U.S. government authorities allow it. I wrote in an earlier post how their reactions will dictate the “success” or “failure” of this attack as terrorism.

[spwdo]

Who cares? It's not a photograph taken through my clothes.

they do that now in holland when you want to go to the USA . airport security are to be found fighting over shifts when university studentees have their flights planned

[Gerben42]

About the "scare" in New York, quite impressive how much effort was put in finding the guy who passed security, so little effort apparently to stop him from getting there.

 

I know how easy or hard it is to get into the "safe" area. A few years ago in a large European airport my suitcase was lost, and it was found like 1 hour later (after my train had left of course) and I had to pick it up in the luggage area. I was given some card that I would have to show someone in arrivals area so that I could get in from the backside. When I went there, I made some effort in finding someone to officially allow me in, but if I wanted I would have gotten in by myself, including any bombs that I might have picked up from the outside.

 

I guess this way the soon-to-be famous person got in as well.

 

Airport security should first close the simple leaks before any effect from liquid bags, body scanners and shoe searches will contribute significantly to airplane safety.

[JoAnneM]

As a parent whose children and grandchildren fly frequently I am all for whatever security they want to put in place. If I sat here and said the measures are too much or not worth the money, etc imagine how I would feel if one of them ended up on a plane with a terrorist. Think about it.

[shyams]

Trivialize the attempt in public and belittle the bomb attempter - make him look the fool.  In private, we revisit our visa/passport system and make changes where needed.  Then we prosecute the criminal and move on.  These are our best moves IMO.

Agree with this.

 

Obviously, some learnings from the failed attempt will have to be incorporated into the system but a large-scale knee-jerk over-reaction to the incident is a way in which we allow the bad guys to achieve their objectives.

 

...use the power of the states to achieve their aims. Provocation is an example—getting a state to overreact and undercut its own legitimacy.

[hrothgar]

Imagine how I would feel if one of them ended up on a plane with a terrorist. Think about it.

I suspect that you'd have an entirely irrational over-reaction. (For that matter, I be quite surprised if any of us didn't have an irrational over-reaction if we were directly effected by this type of incident)

 

This, of course, is why you don't want policy decisions made by people who are directly involved. You don't want people reacting based on emotion...

[Gerben42]

   As a parent whose children and grandchildren fly frequently I am all for whatever security they want to put in place. If I sat here and said the measures are too much or not worth the money, etc imagine how I would feel if one of them ended up on a plane with a terrorist. Think about it.

 

Subjectively, there might be no such thing as too much security. Objectively, there can be. If every attack or attempted attack leads to tougher security with high cost, they have the feeling the attack will accomplish something. The foiled attempt last week is leading to millions upon millions of extra costs and longer waiting lines. Even though unsuccessful in creating a disaster, he will feel he has accomplished a lot.

 

This is why the only solution is to agree on a sensible set of measures - the ones before 9/11 with some tiny non-intrusive adjustments - and get rid of the leaks in the current system like the one I experienced - and do the rest by spending more money on police work.

 

My response to all these terrorist threats would have been to send specialists to all major airports with the objective to get past security and then deal with the hundreds of security weak spots that they will find rather than the current strategy to introduces random visible measures.

[ggwhiz]

This seems to be part of the process and I'm all for it.

 

At one time, baggage handlers and screeners were unmotivated minimum wage clock punchers, many of whom should never have passed a background security check.

 

Better tools and training might lead to If "A" or "B" call a supervisor. If "A" AND "B" call the guy with the gun. Makes the last (least?) line of defence more effective but improvements at the intelligence level come in tandem and we won't be hearing about them.

 

An immediate overreaction is understandable until the overall package is tweaked and tested.

[kenberg]

To add on to Gerben's recent post a little:

 

Maybe it was two years ago that we went down to Peru to visit Machu Picchu and such things. We came back through the Atlanta airport and had to go through customs and then the regular US check. Well, Atlanta is at the top of the world's busiest airports and it's a zoo. When we saw how many people had to be processed we could not imagine making the connection (we had been up all nigt because of a bad connection in Lima but that's another story). But we were herded here, herded there, all very fast, there were checkpoints but damn little checking. If a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, they have some work to do at a far more elementary level than body scanning.

 

I sympathize with JoAnn's comments but I guess I don't share her views. My older daughter travels for work and visits places I would prefer that she didn't. But she also rides the subway in Washington DC. She in fact worries more about the subway than the flights or even the visits to the not such great locales. The subway is daily, or rather it used to be, I think she has made other arrangements.

 

If someone shouts death to America, or death to Ken Berg, I take him seriously. That's different from saying that every advertised security measure is worth the money. Maybe the body scanners are, maybe they aren't, but at some point we will have reached a limit on what can be expected of technology.

 

Btw, is it really true that "they do that now in holland when you want to go to the USA . airport security are to be found fighting over shifts when university students have their flights planned "? There isn't much to laugh about in all of this, but I find the thought of guys (we are talking of guys, not gals, here?) fighting over who gets to do the body scans amusing. It's an ill wind that blows no good! I can imagine this for the first couple of times but my guess is that the job gets pretty boring after a while regardless of who is being scanned.

[helene_t]

Btw, is it really true that "they do that now in holland when you want to go to the USA . airport security are to be found fighting over shifts when university students have their flights planned "? There isn't much to laugh about in all of this, but I find the thought of guys (we are talking of guys, not gals, here?) fighting over who gets to do the body scans amusing. It's an ill wind that blows no good! I can imagine this for the first couple of times but my guess is that the job gets pretty boring after a while regardless of who is being scanned.

In Amsterdam (as in most places I have visited), male security officers will search male travelers, and females will search females.

 

Maybe it's a great job to be a homosexual airport security officer but I doubt it.

[gwnn]

I've seen women thoroughly searched by men on more than 1 airport. They never apologized or offered any explanations. Admittedly, the women didn't seem to mind either. I've never been searched by women, though :P

[jdonn]

I've seen women thoroughly searched by men on more than 1 airport. They never apologized or offered any explanations. Admittedly, the women didn't seem to mind either. I've never been searched by women, though :P

I don't think those are the women I want searching me!

[hrothgar]

I've seen women thoroughly searched by men on more than 1 airport. They never apologized or offered any explanations. Admittedly, the women didn't seem to mind either. I've never been searched by women, though :(

I don't think those are the women I want searching me!

Bruce Schneier raised a very interesting point:

 

What happened on December 25th is an example of security measures that worked. The would-be bomber was forced to adopt

 

1. A high explosive that is relatively hard to detonate

2. A method of detonating said explosive that was extremely unreliable

 

I very much agree that a hell of a lot of things could have gone better on the security front. At the same time, we should all be very grateful that security measures have improved so much in the past few years.

 

Hrothgar

 

(Whose ex-girlfriend's sister's ex-girlfriend was seated nine rows in front of the would be bombed)

[Winstonm]

I've seen women thoroughly searched by men on more than 1 airport. They never apologized or offered any explanations. Admittedly, the women didn't seem to mind either. I've never been searched by women, though :P

I don't think those are the women I want searching me!

Bruce Schneier raised a very interesting point:

 

What happened on December 25th is an example of security measures that worked. The would-be bomber was forced to adopt

 

1. A high explosive that is relatively hard to detonate

2. A method of detonating said explosive that was extremely unreliable

 

I very much agree that a hell of a lot of things could have gone better on the security front. At the same time, we should all be very grateful that security measures have improved so much in the past few years.

 

Hrothgar

 

(Whose ex-girlfriend's sister's ex-girlfriend was seated nine rows in front of the would be bombed)

Yes,

 

And this is one more reason that Dick Cheney's response on Meet the Press was so loathsome. The security measures worked, we got a bad guy off the streets and into a U.S. jail where he can be prosecuted for the CRIME of terrorism and sent away for life - WITHOUT TORTURING HIM OR VIOLATING HIS RIGHTS.

 

Our system works if we are only brave enough to let it work - the likes of Dick Cheney are the cowards.

[Lobowolf]

Britain's system worked, anyway - he was prohibited from returning to the UK by its Border Agency. That he obtained and retained a Visa is a sign that our "system" didn't work. It was nice of him not to go to the bathroom and rip it out of his underwear. The device (apparently) COULD have worked, but sometimes you get lucky.

 

 

***

The revelation of Abdulmutallab's background has confounded terror experts. Dr Magnus Ranstorp of the Center for Asymmetric Threat Studies at the Swedish National Defence College said that the attempted bombing "didn't square".

 

"On the one hand, it seems he's been on the terror watch list but not on the no-fly list," he said. "That doesn't square because the American Department for Homeland Security has pretty stringent data-mining capability. I don't understand how he had a valid visa if he was known on the terror watch list.

 

"Why didn't he go to the toilets to detonate the bomb? Why would he try to set it off 20 minutes before he's going to land? It could probably have been successful had the person not been amateurish. I think this is a sign that it's much more difficult now for al-Qa'ida to pull off something serious."

 

Chaim Koppel, a security consultant, added: "I think the explosive was supposed to go bang rather than just start a fire. The terrorists probably didn't mix it well enough. Maybe they didn't do enough practice runs, but the more the guy is trained, the more exposed he is to MI5, MI6, the FBI and other security agencies, so he probably didn't receive enough training."

***

 

 

Sometimes you get lucky, though. But when you drop a singleton king for no apparent reason in an 8-card fit, you shouldn't take too much credit when it works. When a guy on a terror watch list, whose own father reported his concerns, gets to keep his Visa and get on an inbound flight with incendiary devices, the fact that the plane stayed in the air isn't enough to support a statement like "the system worked" - a position even Janet Napolitano has backed away from.