Airline Security

[cjsmith]

People are saying that airline security sucked big fat pink plaid hairy rocks up until last Tuesday. Monday morning quarterbacking is all too easy.

I'd like to take it a step further for a moment, and say that airline security sucks bigtime NOW. I came back from Canada on Saturday and took special pains to mail my 4" locking pocketknife rather than carry it. I needn't have worried.

Nonmetal guns don't show up well on X-rays at all, nor do ceramic knives. Even metal knives are invisible when laid atop a larger dense object with an acceptable silhouette. With the technology we have, I don't know how to stop guns and knives coming in except by requiring visual searches.

My view, which may be a bit cynical, is that airline security is there to keep passengers FEELING safe. Obviously, there is value in that. We're seeing now what happens to the airline industry when passengers DON'T feel safe. But we started to confuse the advertisement with the product itself.

So how do we increase safety, particularly in a free market? We want air travel to be cheap, easy, fast, reliable, and secure; but we can't have perfect scores in all categories. The free market picked a certain set of tradeoffs among those, and last Tuesday we began to regret what it chose.

I'd support the inclusion of well-trained personnel (Sky Marshalls?) on passenger jets of a certain capacity. Yes, it'd cost more, so others may not choose the same way I would.

I'd be willing to have my bags visually searched, if it could be done efficiently by moderately-trained personnel. X-rays are a joke. But a visual search is a big step toward taking away individual privacy, so I expect to be in the minority with my own willingness. I wonder if different airlines with different policies on this could coexist in the market. That would allow the maximum individual choice.

I'd support training of the existing flight crew, both cockpit and cabin personnel, in specific hand-to-hand combat techniques and other techniques aimed at hijacking scenarios. They're obviously already trained in many scenarios of urgency, but now that the face of hijacking is completely different, that training can be retooled.

Others have suggested a background check before pilot training. I've been through so many background checks that I don't care about one more. BUT a cursory background check is easy to pass. How extensive and expensive are we willing to make it, and who'll foot the bill?

If I had to pick one point of vulnerability, it'd be the cockpit door. I would like to see those become very hard to breach. Give the cockpit crew a few minutes to descend to a safe altitude (safer for cabin decompression, that is), punch in the transponder code, tell ATC... and maybe get the emergency firearm, if we choose to go that route.

Alternative and additional suggestions very much welcomed.

Comments

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

Ooo, how timely: take a gander at this job announcement from the Federal Aviation Administration.

[abz6598.livejournal.com]

I'm not currently aware of any non-metallic guns but then again the Russians and Chinese do come up with some kinky stuff from time to time.

I wonder if another technique might have been to depressurize the plane. The pilots would have their own masks and I suppose you could override the automatic release of masks in the passenger compartment.

I rather like the idea of allowing the pilots, at their discretion, to be armed.

Simple fact is that these were three or four guys with razor blades. I would think that twenty or so passengers could overpower them. Sure, theyd take some damage but it beats being a statistic. I agree, its easy to Monday morning QB these things.

I think we share a similar concern about what will be done in the name of 'security'. What is it they say? "Necessity is the plea for every infringement on liberty. It is the arguement of tyrants, it is the credo of slaves"

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

I'm not currently aware of any non-metallic guns but then again the Russians and Chinese do come up with some kinky stuff from time to time.

Me either -- I should have phrased that as a potential rather than fact. Remember the hysteria when the Glock 17 came out, about it being plastic and "not showing up on X-rays?" Well, it does have enough metal in it to look like a gun on X-rays. But I'd figure it's only a matter of time before someone figures out an alternative to steel for a barrel and firing pin. (Ceramic??)

I wonder if another technique might have been to depressurize the plane.

Yeah, that and/or some sudden wild maneuvers.

I think we share a similar concern about what will be done in the name of 'security'.

Yes, I am indeed concerned about that. Just because I'm willing for my bags to be searched doesn't necessarily mean I'm 100% comfortable making rules about it. This is a tough line to draw...

It could get messy

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

This illustrates it well:
http://www.adjectivenoun.org.uk/jake/twentyone.htm

But though I'll continue to argue for civil liberties as much as possible on the ground, I'm all for extreme security on airplanes. As we've seen (and knew), it's incredibly easy to kill lots of people otherwise. I'll gladly leave for the airport an hour early.

But I'm gonna miss saying goodbye to Casey at the gate. :/

Re: It could get messy

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

But I'm gonna miss saying goodbye to Casey at the gate. :/

Yeah, me too. Funny how Logan already had that one in place (at least as far as I remember from my yearly flights home) and Boston Logan was the origin of two of those flights anyway... Sigh. I just hope we don't give up a lot in exchange for totally INEFFECTIVE security.

[joedecker.livejournal.com]

I'd support the inclusion of well-trained personnel (Sky Marshalls?) on passenger jets of a certain capacity.

Definitely. I'd also consider
letting active military and police, or perhaps
active military and police with a few years of
service be allowed to (but perhaps not required to) carry appropriate weapons when they're on a plane, assuming again proper training.

I would think that the military would be moving
lots of people around in the coming times.
Troop transports, ec., are part of that, but it
occurs to me that there are a lot of flights
with empty seats right now, and that there are
airlines who'd probably be glad to give something
affordable back for the financial assistance
they're getting. There're probably several things
wrong with this idea, but maybe it's fodder for something more intelligent.

I'd support training of the existing flight crew, both cockpit and cabin personnel, in specific hand-to-hand combat techniques and other techniques aimed at hijacking scenarios....

This is a big one, and tractable.

I'd be willing to have my bags visually searched, if it could be done efficiently by moderately-trained personnel.

Slower, but I'm willing.

A problem that this shares with the current system is not lack of training, but laziness, getting soft. An agressive program of testing to make sure the security procedures are actually followed, including fines or worse to the individual security officers who are found to have "gotten lax", would make a big difference, I suspect, and would create a sustainably higher level of security than just a new set of search rules by themselves. I think. :)

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

I'd also consider letting active military and police, or perhaps active military and police with a few years of service be allowed to (but perhaps not required to) carry appropriate weapons when they're on a plane, assuming again proper training.

This is not too far-fetched. There are already rules allowing for the carrying of firearms by... um, I'd have to look it up, but essentially government (federal?) employees whose jobs allow the carrying of firearms... on commercial aircraft. Damn, where's my FAA regs when I need 'em.

As a pilot, I'm not happy about that unless they get the right kind of bullets. Overpenetration is a bitch in a pressurized aircraft or where an innocent passenger is likely to be right next to the baddie. But suppose they get the right kind.

A problem that [a system of searches] shares with the current system is not lack of training, but laziness, getting soft.

Absolutely. A perennial problem. That's going to be hard to address. In the end, this is all dependent on people, fallible mood-driven error-prone fatigue-prone people...

[joedecker.livejournal.com]

Sure. But random, unannoucded blind tests of each checkpoint several times a year would make a difference. In high school, I worked at a 7-Eleven, and sold alcohol. My anal-retentiveness about checking IDs was increased after I screwed up during an undercover test. I wasn't prosecuted or fired, but I still felt the heat. The stakes are higher here, but so can be the penalty.

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

My anal-retentiveness about checking IDs was increased after I screwed up during an undercover test. ...I still felt the heat.

Hmm, thank you for that insight. I hadn't been through that, so I wouldn't know as well what it would feel like. Very good point...

[abz6598.livejournal.com]

I have never travelled by plane in my adult life without accompanying firearms. The usual routine is to get to the counter and I say in monotone "I need to declare unloaded firearms". They pass over the little luggage tag and my guns, locked in their case, go in with the rest of the luggage.

One day the gal slid a form across the counter to me and I was surprised. A form? The form was for "police, bodyguards, federal agents" and a few other categories to allow carrying of firearms onto the plane in the passenger area. I do recall the distinct category of 'bodyguard'. Wonder how they qualify that one.

As for overpenetration, there are so many different types of pre-fragmented bullets on the market these days (Glaser Safety Slugs spring to mind) that its almost a non-issue.

I can almost here CLinton and Schumer saying "If it saves just one life..."

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

I have never travelled by plane in my adult life without accompanying firearms. ... They pass over the little luggage tag and my guns, locked in their case, go in with the rest of the luggage.

Cool! I've never done this. Do you mean they go as checked luggage, or in the cabin with you? (The regs I was thinking about would permit them to be brought in the cabin.)

[abz6598.livejournal.com]

You can 'take guns on a plane' in the sense that they can go as checked luggage. There are a few requirements though..the guns must be unloaded (interesting story about that in a minute) and they must be in an airline approved hardcase (avail. at any gun shop). You sign a little declaration saying you swear the guns are unloaded and they go in the belly of the plane with all your other luggage.

Taking guns into the cabin, however, is highly frowned upon. I do have a small fiberglass dagger that I take with me that passes through metal detectors without problems.

It used to be that you had to remove the arm from the case and show that it was unloaded. This varies from airline to airline. I distinctly recall the Xmas flight when I was at the counter, with about two hundred people in line behind me, and the gal demands that I show her the guns are unloaded. Okay, I shrug. Open the case and pull out my AK, AR15 and my Browning 9mm. Worked the actions with a resounding CLACKing noise. Shoulda seen the entire line take two giant steps backwards.

Nowadays (at least until last week) they were content to take your word for it when you signed off that they were unloaded.

Dont leave home without it ;)

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

You can 'take guns on a plane' in the sense that they can go as checked luggage.

Ah, ok. I haven't checked luggage in many years; they've lost it more often than they've given it back to me, and less than fifty percent was a bad track record in my mind, so I quit letting them have any of mine. ;-) Still, this might be a reason to reconsider. If I thought I'd get it back. Hmm.

Taking guns into the cabin, however, is highly frowned upon.

Yeah. I'll have to go look up this exception I'd thought I'd found. Aaaah, here it is, FAA regs 108.11. You can have it "accessible" if... Ah hell, here's the link. Seems like it's gotta be for your job and you have to be on duty at the time. Eg, I expect, air marshal.

Worked the actions with a resounding CLACKing noise.

Don't AR15s sound sweet? 8-) (Mine's a Colt Sporter, but hey, close.)

[abz6598.livejournal.com]

Don't AR15s sound sweet? 8-) (Mine's a Colt Sporter, but hey, close.)

Oooooooooh my! Okay, that gets you on my Friends list.

Heres me and mine.
(http://www.livejournal.com/users/abz6598/day/2001/07/04)

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

Oooooooooh my! Okay, that gets you on my Friends list.

Ooo, flattery! ;-)

[kimatha.livejournal.com]

Somehow I had the feeling y'all would get along...

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

(chuckle)