![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
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.
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.
no subject
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.)
no subject
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 ;)
no subject
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.)
no subject
Oooooooooh my! Okay, that gets you on my Friends list.
Heres me and mine.
(http://www.livejournal.com/users/abz6598/day/2001/07/04)
no subject
Ooo, flattery! ;-)
no subject
no subject