Airport Security

[Viola]

I know a girl who said that airport security was interested in patting her down and wanding her considerably more than necessary. She was pretty mad, and I can't blame her.

She also said she's never wearing heels or boots to an airport ever again.

 

[Vintage Betty]

That's what happened to me. I came direct from a business meeting in a suit and heels.

The guys didn't have as much fun when they realized I didn't like it and wasn't having fun too.

Vintage Betty

 

[carebear]

That's what happened to me. I came direct from a business meeting in a suit and heels.

The guys didn't have as much fun when they realized I didn't like it and wasn't having fun too.

Vintage Betty

At least they were government employees who you can complain about without facing arrest or dismissal as "soft on terror"... oh wait.

 

[Viola]

lol

I'll never forget the look on my husband's face when I proudly told him my Sensei said I was now able to kill someone. He didn't think it was funny....

Seriously, I always wondered what I would do. All this training isn't any good if someone has a semi.

Vintage Betty

Honestly, without going into a whole story, I know there was one time on the subway I would have been most grateful to have even just the knitting needles.

 

[warbird]

For what it's worth, prior to the hysteria over the MLK and JFK assasinations and then the spate of (non-lethal) hijackings in the 60's it was perfectly legal to carry onboard US flights. There were no metal detectors whatsoever.

Nowadays I wouldn't make it necessarily "unrestricted" but if a person is considered safe to carry on the streets of 47 states in the US in other public areas filled with hundreds of people, I'm not sure why logic says an airplane is somehow different.

The myth of the "explosive decompression" owes much to people mistaking a movie (Goldfinger) with reality. (Haven't seen that before, have we? )

Aircraft aren't pressurized by sealing them airtight like a spaceship, they are pressurized by ramming in more air than is lost. Besides controlling the intake of air, in the rear is a dilating aperture that, at altitude, is typically open about a foot square. One, two or 300 half-inch diameter holes are therefore meaningless, pressure-wise.

It takes a massive structural failure, such as on that Hawaiian air flight some years back, to actually cause decompression to any meaningful degree. If you were sitting next to a window with a hole, you would have an annoying high-pitched whine and might get chilly, but that's about it, you aren't in vacuum after all.

As far as "some innocent might get hurt by a stray round". Think it through.

Remember, non-resistance in today's world apparently means everyone dies, not just the bad guys and the odd unfortunate. Resistance with inadequate or impromptu weapons against trained attackers means the good guys will suffer injury and/or death beyond what they should have, had they been allowed sufficient arms.

The attacker has the advantage of choosing the time and place and will, as failed test after failed test has shown, probably have whatever weapons they want smuggled onboard by suborned ground crew anyway.

If "Plan A" is the hijackers do whatever they want and we depend on their "mercy" and "Plan B" is our own Air Force shoots us down, killing all aboard, to prevent another 9/11...

Then I think I'd rather risk one or two misplaced bullets.

Very well stated. I'm glad you went through the trouble to type it all out as I didn't want to.

 

[scotrace]

Agreed. A well-presented eye-opener.

 

[Diamondback]

Semper Fi, Marine! Score that one a 4.0/"SHACK!*
*As Strategic Air Command BUFF crewdogs used to call it...

 

[carebear]

Lest I seem a negative nelly, there have been some good, effective changes made security-wise. The point is that those are mostly transparant to us, the citizen.

The increased (non-invasive) screening of checked baggage is good, as that has been neglected in the past. Checking of carry-ons remains at about the same level of effectiveness, though adding non-invasive "air puff" testing for explosives residue while items are being x-rayed and folks walk through the metal detector would also be a "less-invasive" technique I could probably accept. The pat-downs and shoe removal, as currently applied, are ludicrous, demeaning and useless.

The hardening of cockpit doors was long overdue. Along with that is the awareness by cockpit crew that the door stays shut, no matter what is going on in the cabin. Those two things make a repeat of 9/11 very unlikely, far more than trying to confiscate a veteran's Medal of Honor or grandma's sewing scissors.

Most pilots I know intend to worry about what's going on behind them on the ground and, if an incident occurs, to depressurize the cabin and turn the flight into a roller coaster until landing (good reason to be buckled up unless actively walking around). Add to that the awareness of passangers that sitting still and going along could be a death sentence and the whole hijacking angle has lost much of its luster.

The biggest threat to aircraft remains what it always was, a bomb. Not carried on board by a passenger or in a passenger's checked bag, but smuggled on board by ground staff. People, as always, remain the weakest link and no amount of making me wait in line will change that.

The fact they are still, 6 years later, arresting illegal aliens (albeit with no known evil motives) working as contract employees on the flightline should be our biggest concern. Employee screening and border control need to be dealt with across the board in this country. We have the advantage that the European West doesn't, that you can't walk or drive here from the centers of violence. If, once you get across the oceans, you can just walk in and be "sanctuaried" by the ignorently well-meaning, or overstay your student visa, that logistical advantage grows thinner.

 

[Diamondback]

Carberry, are you trying to make me exhaust my vocabulary of superlatives on your analysis? lol

 

[Paisley]

If I remember right, El Al Airlines has long been using some of these security measures and hasn't had a highjacking in many years. I'm not sure if we could implement their many security measures here.

 

[scotrace]

"No skin, either"

I know our members often like to dress a little better on airplanes, but did you know there was a dress code?

Woman thrown off plane for "inappropriate attire."

I really wish they'd pay attention to actual safety and not pull stunts like this.

 

[Paisley]

There is talk of filing a lawsuit over this now. [huh]

 

[Edward]

So, yes, Mythbusters might have busted the myth, but you wouldn't believe what my sensei can do with a knitting needle.

True - there's nothing more deadly than the human mind.

Anything that fits, yes, but violent "explosive decompression", as it's called, that opens a big hole and sucks everyone nearby out like in Executive Decision? Adam and Jamie are a little sloppy at times on things like comparative firepower, but when you pump a plane up to full-pressure, possibly more, and fire a few into it with no kB!, that's pretty much "definite bust".

I wasn't thinking it would explode as such, but maybe I thought it might do more damage than it actually does. I presume in order to cause a huge hole and suck us all out, there'd have to be a greater structural weakening than just caused by one shot? The lines I was more thinking along were loss of breathable air and so on, chaos caused, and use of guns in a small confined space like that with so many people in the way, but then there's always gonig to be problems with whatever potential solution we come up with, I suppose. Reassuring to know if I ever do end up forced to fly with armed folks, but I think I'll give that a pass for as long as possible! lol

As for training, many of us licensed firearms carriers actually train much harder than many police officers: Asheville, NC (IIRC) for example, requires a single 100-round qualifier per year; I do a 200-round drill every couple months.

I just see it as leading to far more problems than it is likely to solve. Can you imagine an air rage incident if somebody has a gun? But then I don't think it was a lack of guns that caused 9/11 - I think there it was just simply such a new thing. People were so drilled that in the event of a hijack, what tyou had to do was behave and you'd be released. Nobody could have foreseen a suicide attack like that, so that I think is why things happened as they did. After all, faced off with enough other folks prepared to rush you at once, a box cutter is not exactly a weapon with much range.

You can also profile because different demographics tend to commit different crimes. For example, your average serial killer is a twenty- or thirty-something white male, usually a little overweight, very intelligent and somewhat socially lacking--if they were looking for one in my area, I'd certainly expect to be looked up and asked some questions.

Sure, but there is, in my opinion, something of a difference between police hunting for a serial killer they believe to be on the loose in an area, and police singling you out for questioning because you fit a vague profile of the paradigm serial killer and therefore might be one. Back in the dsay, I'd have had no objection to being questioned while travelling if authorities were on the lookout for a terrorist suspect, however, if I could prove that I was pulled aside on the "Irish, therefore must be a potential terrorist: question" line of thinking, I would be consulting my lawyer. It certainly wouldn't make me well disposed towards security authorities, which leads to a whole other social issue.

All perpetrated by middle eastern men that fit the same profile.

Yes, those offences were - so keep on the lookout for people suspected to be responsible for those, or those whom is it reasonable to suspect as plotting similar. Searching on grounds of race alone, saying to these people "You are a potential terrorist because of your skin colour" - which is effectively what that policy does - isn't likely to stop the terrorist threat in reality. What it probably will do is hand Al Quaeda and the likes an extremely effective recruiting tool, not to mention reinforce a lot of unfounded prejudices elsewhere in society. Unless the authorities have more reason than skin colour to single out someone for special attention, I'd rather take the risks myself. YMMV - and obviously does.

I know our members often like to dress a little better on airplanes, but did you know there was a dress code?

Woman thrown off plane for "inappropriate attire."

I really wish they'd pay attention to actual safety and not pull stunts like this.

Agreed. What the young lady is wearing is hardly classy, but nor is it indecent. I've certainly seen far worse out and about.

From what I've seen of how censorious television can be in the US (I've seen a brief sighting of a nipple and a single sex kiss pixellated out, as well as a swear word bleeped out, at after 11 pm on a network station....), I wouldn't be too quick to read anything into the television blurring out anything either. Sounds to me, if the story is reported accurately, more like some jumped up, little-man syndrome - "I have a uniform and some authority, I will use it to make myself feel big at your expense." Of course none of us who weren't there can really know what exactly happened, but it does seem that the whole situation was unnecessary and poorly handled.

 

[Twitch]

...El Al Airlines has long been using some of these security measures and hasn't had a highjacking ...

Paisley that would make sense in every country except the US where pollitically correctness and the fear of offending any minority is abhorrent.lol

 

[Diamondback]

I wasn't thinking it would explode as such, but maybe I thought it might do more damage than it actually does. I presume in order to cause a huge hole and suck us all out, there'd have to be a greater structural weakening than just caused by one shot? The lines I was more thinking along were loss of breathable air and so on, chaos caused, and use of guns in a small confined space like that with so many people in the way, but then there's always gonig to be problems with whatever potential solution we come up with, I suppose. Reassuring to know if I ever do end up forced to fly with armed folks, but I think I'll give that a pass for as long as possible! lol

Edward, as previously noted there's already a hole in the cabin: a pressure-control valve. IIRC, bearing in mind I'm a frequent guest on the 737 assembly-line, the hole from even a .50BMG would cause that valve to tighten up enough to offset the additional "vent".

I just see it as leading to far more problems than it is likely to solve. Can you imagine an air rage incident if somebody has a gun? But then I don't think it was a lack of guns that caused 9/11 - I think there it was just simply such a new thing. People were so drilled that in the event of a hijack, what tyou had to do was behave and you'd be released. Nobody could have foreseen a suicide attack like that, so that I think is why things happened as they did. After all, faced off with enough other folks prepared to rush you at once, a box cutter is not exactly a weapon with much range.

Actually, numerous studies have shown that licensed weapons-carriers have a much-lower per-capita incidence of crime than the general population--largely because we're taught to do everything possible to de-escalate the situation, and only draw when we are in fear for our lives or those of an innocent third party. I actually had written up a draft for a protocol once that would require licensed CCW'ers to apply for a separate "airline endorsement", with a requirement to meet or beat the air marshals' standard on "qualifier" shoots, and would have mandated certain types of frangible (breaks up after a certain distance) ammo for airline carry.

Sure, but there is, in my opinion, something of a difference between police hunting for a serial killer they believe to be on the loose in an area, and police singling you out for questioning because you fit a vague profile of the paradigm serial killer and therefore might be one. Back in the dsay, I'd have had no objection to being questioned while travelling if authorities were on the lookout for a terrorist suspect, however, if I could prove that I was pulled aside on the "Irish, therefore must be a potential terrorist: question" line of thinking, I would be consulting my lawyer. It certainly wouldn't make me well disposed towards security authorities, which leads to a whole other social issue.

Good point, sir. I also did make a fallacious comparison: a serial-killer, you can't know you've got one until you've got a few bodies and thus can't preempt; a tango, you can presume they're gonna want a piece of your infrastructure and must preempt. (And were I one, I'd want to recruit people well outside the expected profile, or who could be disguised as such.)

Agreed. What the young lady is wearing is hardly classy, but nor is it indecent. I've certainly seen far worse out and about.

From what I've seen of how censorious television can be in the US (I've seen a brief sighting of a nipple and a single sex kiss pixellated out, as well as a swear word bleeped out, at after 11 pm on a network station....), I wouldn't be too quick to read anything into the television blurring out anything either. Sounds to me, if the story is reported accurately, more like some jumped up, little-man syndrome - "I have a uniform and some authority, I will use it to make myself feel big at your expense." Of course none of us who weren't there can really know what exactly happened, but it does seem that the whole situation was unnecessary and poorly handled.

Bingo--I see more "exposed real-estate" at both top and bottom everytime I have to go to my local mall. Sometimes even at the local bookstore... (Sorry, but there are "tasteful" and "trashy" ways to display one's assets if one feels compelled to do so, and while I wouldn't want my daughter if I had one seen in public like that, she's still only in the gray-area short of the "trashy" line.) Unfortunately, your "little-man syndrome" description seems to be common across almost every position of "authority"--the whole "power corrupts" thing. Makes me glad to live in a small town where I shoot alongside the local cops and share a dining room at the local diner with a lot of 'em, without such problems...

 

[FATS88]

TEST

TEST

 

[FATS88]

There has to be a better way!

Hello,

I have just returned from Peters Bros.
I had to see Joe Sr. in person
to make sure of measurements
head shape etc.
And if it wasn't neccesary to fly, I wouldn't have.
I cant stand this b*$#@!*!!@$#, that one must
go through at the Airports, I don't know how
you people that, (I'm sure dress well),
and have to fly alot, do it!
I've only flown four times in the past five years.
I doff my hat to you, and please have a Champayno or
two on me.

I did some research a few back,
reading and listening to accounts of
the Holocaust survivors,
and one of the memories that seemed to
crop up in several testamonies,
was that along with all of the other atrocities;
was the degradation of being ordered to strip
and feeling embarrased and utterly helpless.
I feel that the current goverment is telling me that
Yes, we are in control, even to the point
of making an "innocent" person remove any
article of clothing, and every article if they
say so.
I joked with someone in the line that
airport security should have busker on the alto
saxophone playing "Tenderly"
or "Whipped cream" and if I'm going to
do a Chippendale act, I want to at least be payed scale.
Like Brad, I wear my travel best suit, tie,
trilby etc.
The next time I plan to do one of two
things; I'll find out if I can be selected for the
more intense search, which will allow me to sit
and remove my shoes, as well as everything else,
like a civilized being, which will hopefully afford
me to do this at my own pace, without the person
behind me copping an attitude, because I'm
dressed nicely, and not going to rush and mess up
my things or lose something of value for sake of hurry.
Or I'm flying in my pajamas, dressing gown and slippers.
That way when I arrive at my desitnation,
I'll only have to dress once.

Thank you Loungers
Fats 88

 

[FATS88]

There has to be a better way!

Hello,

I have just returned from Peters Bros.
I had to see Joe Sr. in person
to make sure of measurements
head shape etc.
And if it wasn't neccesary to fly, I wouldn't have.
I cant stand this b*$#@!*!!@$#, that one must
go through at the Airports, I don't know how
you people that, (I'm sure dress well),
and have to fly alot, do it!
I've only flown four times in the past five years.
I doff my hat to you, and please have a Champayno or
two on me.

I did some research a few back,
reading and listening to accounts of
the Holocaust survivors,
and one of the memories that seemed to
crop up in several testamonies,
was that along with all of the other atrocities;
was the degradation of being ordered to strip
and feeling embarrased and utterly helpless.
I feel that the current goverment is telling me that
Yes, we are in control, even to the point
of making an "innocent" person remove any
article of clothing, and every article if they
say so.
I joked with someone in the line that
airport security should have busker on the alto
saxophone playing "Tenderly"
or "Whipped cream" and if I'm going to
do a Chippendale act, I want to at least be payed scale.
Like Brad, I wear my travel best suit, tie,
trilby etc.
The next time I plan to do one of two
things; I'll find out if I can be selected for the
more intense search, which will allow me to sit
and remove my shoes, as well as everything else,
like a civilized being, which will hopefully afford
me to do this at my own pace, without the person
behind me copping an attitude, because I'm
dressed nicely, and not going to rush and mess up
my things or lose something of value for sake of hurry.
Or I'm flying in my pajamas, dressing gown and slippers.
That way when I arrive at my desitnation,
I'll only have to dress once.

Thank you Loungers
Fats 88

 

[Doh!]

Here's a nod to Security: I caught a flight out of LAX yesterday morning, and arrived at the airport with about :30 minutes to spare. Too bad the line through Security was about an hour long!

After about 2 minutes in line, though, an officer went down the line asking for people's departure times. Because mine was relatively soon, she grabbed me out of line and took me immediately to a checkpoint! I couldn't thank her enough.

In fact, once I get back home I'll send the airline a note for such good service.

 

[Diamondback]

Doh!, this is why I always make sure to arrive two hours before scheduled--if nothing else, I can always plant my nose in a book or mag (I try to keep the latest issue of Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security International in the laptop case--just call me "Mini-Me Jack Bauer" lol ), or wire in and chew on a research/analysis project while I wait.