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"

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. :/

[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. :)