Airplane Security

[Justin]

With everything that has happened since 9/11, wouldnt it be a great idea to have security on every flight? I'm sure it wouldnt stop everything that has or will happen, but im sure it would scare some of them. Especially if the security person(s) would be given a weapon and be allowed to use it under certain circumstances.

After the shootings at columbine, more security was ordered to help protect schools. Why not on planes?

[trailerprincess]

With everything that has happened since 9/11, wouldnt it be a great idea to have security on every flight? I'm sure it wouldnt stop everything that has or will happen, but im sure it would scare some of them. Especially if the security person(s) would be given a weapon and be allowed to use it under certain circumstances.

After the shootings at columbine, more security was ordered to help protect schools. Why not on planes?

I'd be somewhat reluctant to see weapons on a plane in any circumstances but security might help I guess

[kaiser soze]

the airlines should just hold everyone at gunpoint for the flight

[Tompz]

Us and Isrealis have trained guards that goes along for flights posing as civilians. Fact.

[fucktopgirl]

[QUOTE=Justin] Especially if the security person(s) would be given a weapon and be allowed to use it under certain circumstances.QUOTE]


Under what circumstances?
I mean this is where it could get nasty, people (security) would get freaking paranoiac and shoot at every person they feel is suspect ...

[Tompz]

Should have guns dropping from the celing instead of oxygene masks. In case of emergency everyone gets Colts.

[Tompz]

More guns are always a good solution. It get's much safer that way. It's the american way.

[fucktopgirl]

^haha , yea that would be a great solution.

Bloody hell of a mess but no freaking terrorist on the plane, not even one single human alive.

[QueenAdrock]

I thought they put people on board flights to help with safety. It was some military branch, I don't remember now...but they put them on board. There was a spat one time and one of them pulled a gun on a passenger who wasn't cooperating, I remember that. I'm pretty sure they're not on board anymore though...or maybe they are. I guess this post wasn't helpful.

[QueenAdrock]

More guns are always a good solution. It get's much safer that way. It's the american way.

Trained security with guns I have no problem with. If they put police in the air, sure. They know when and when not to use their guns, and I would trust them.

[trailerprincess]

I thought they put people on board flights to help with safety. It was some military branch, I don't remember now...but they put them on board. There was a spat one time and one of them pulled a gun on a passenger who wasn't cooperating, I remember that. I'm pretty sure they're not on board anymore though...or maybe they are. I guess this post wasn't helpful.

Sounds very similar to that Snipes classic - Passenger 57

John Cutter: Charlie, ever played roulette?
Charles Rane: On occasion.
John Cutter: Well, let me give you a word of advice. Always bet on black!

:cool:

[QueenAdrock]

Found it!

Here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Air_Marshal)

[Tompz]

Problem is getting guns into circulation. Even if only guards or similar have guns some of them are gonna end up where they shouldn't be. It can't be helped. Your gunlaws are wack. More restricted policy on guns would result in less gun violence. It's just that easy.

[ms.peachy]

I mean this is where it could get nasty, people (security) would get freaking paranoiac and shoot at every person they feel is suspect ...
I don't think so. I remember reading about air marshall training, and how shooting is a complete last resort. First of all, you can't just go shooting guns around in a fuselage, for reasons that should be pretty obvious. Secondly, the authorities would much rather have a suspect alive - you can't really interrogate dead people. The goal is to disable, disarm and restrain. Yeah sure I imagine they'll shoot you if there's no other option and they can get a good shot in, but the kind of people who make it to this branch aren't a bunch of nervous nellies with hair triggers.

[Bob]

[QUOTE=Justin] Especially if the security person(s) would be given a weapon and be allowed to use it under certain circumstances.QUOTE]


Under what circumstances?
I mean this is where it could get nasty, people (security) would get freaking paranoiac and shoot at every person they feel is suspect ...

i'm no munitions expert, but i've seen enough action movies to know that blasting guns randomly on an airplane is a terrible terrible idea, i don't see massacres being a huge problem

[QueenAdrock]

Problem is getting guns into circulation. Even if only guards or similar have guns some of them are gonna end up where they shouldn't be. It can't be helped. Your gunlaws are wack. More restricted policy on guns would result in less gun violence. It's just that easy.

I absolutely agree on more restricted policy on guns. However, I also believe that our security officers need them. Not citizens, but people trained to deal with dangerous situations.

[na§tee]

Aug. 11, 2006 - Over the past five years, airline passengers have faced the regular indignity of taking off their shoes at the security checkpoint and learned to leave nail clippers and scissors at home. But after British authorities announced Thursday that they’d stopped an apparent plot to bomb trans-Atlantic flights using liquid explosives, the list of banned on-board items suddenly included seemingly innocuous items such as shampoo, toothpaste and hair gel. British officials said the alleged plotters planned to board as many as 10 aircraft with several different liquids in carry-on bags that could be combined to make a deadly explosive.

Liquid explosives are not a new concept for terrorists. More than a decade ago, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef—best-known for masterminding the 1993 World Trade Center bombing—reportedly used a liquid concoction to create a bomb that went off on a 1994 Philippines Airlines flight, killing one. Yet at least one security expert says even the ramped-up measures now in place at most U.S. airports would not likely have detected the bomb-making materials if they were carefully concealed. NEWSWEEK’s Jennifer Barrett spoke with aviation security expert Douglas Laird, president of the consulting firm Laird & Associates and a former Secret Service agent and longtime security director for Northwest Airlines, about how airport security falls short and what should be done to improve it now. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: Had the U.K. plot not been foiled before the alleged terrorists got to the airport, do you think they would have made it on board?
Douglas Laird: Oh sure. I doubt that what they were carrying on their person or on their carried luggage would have aroused suspicion.

Why?
The screeners had no reason to suspect these items, though their demeanor or appearance could have attracted a response.

What sort of liquid ingredients could be used to create an explosion on board?
By combining various components, you can end up with a concoction that is explosive. Ramzi Ahmed Yousef used nitroglycerine [in the bombing on the 1994 Philippine Airlines flight]. It’s very powerful, but very unstable. So people could end up blowing themselves up before they even got on board. He was able to stabilize it, though, so that didn’t happen. The explosives that [the alleged terrorists in this plot] were planning to make by mixing various items on an airplane I don’t think would have the devastating power of nitroglycerine. There’d be a minimal chance of an explosion but a good chance of a fire. So it wouldn’t [necessarily] blow a hole in the side of the airplane and the plane falls apart. But if you’re halfway over the Atlantic, you do not want a fire onboard.

Would there be a chance that the plane could still land safely then?
The flight deck is totally separate from the rest of the plane and sealed off, and the pilot could have an oxygen mask, so there could be havoc in the back and it would be fine in the cockpit as they try to land the aircraft. But if you’re three or four hours from landing, you’ve got a real problem.

If these ingredients are so hard to detect, would it be wiser to focus on the people rather than the objects—as they do in Israel?
The issue for me with the Israeli method, which is basically profiling, is that there are a lot of false positives. When I was at Northwest Airlines, we used an Israeli company and profiled passengers in Europe and Asia, and we had all kinds of false positives. That was part of the reason we came up with the program called CAPPS [Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening System], which was implemented at Northwest in the 1990s, which let computers sort through the information that customers themselves provided when they bought the ticket. It didn’t identify good and bad guys, it identified knowns versus unknowns.

How did that work?
We'd look to see if the phone number the passenger gave matched the address, if the name matched the address [in public records]. Computers can do this in a millisecond. Taken to the extreme, for example, if you’re a million-miler, you’re not a terrorist. But if you’ve never flown Northwest before, you’re going to get checked. On Sept. 11, the CAPPS program identified 10 of the terrorists.

So how did they get on the planes anyway?
What failed were the policies and procedures of the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] because, at that time, it said that if you were made a selectee by CAPPS, you would have your checked luggage examined. These guys weren’t carrying any checked luggage.

Had the carry-on luggage been checked instead, could the 9/11 attacks have been prevented?
They may have missed their flight, which would have disrupted the plan, and/or the screeners may have found the box cutters. But if they [terrorists] had had an explanation as to why they had the box cutters, they probably would have been allowed to fly. At that point in time you could carry a knife under 4 inches on board.

How long do you think the current ban on all liquids and gels will last?
They’re doing what they have to do now because they have no other choice. But it should be a short-term solution, not a long-term solution.

There are similarities between this plot and the “Bojinka” plot uncovered in 1995, in which terrorists had planned to carry mixtures on board planes and then detonate them over the Pacific. If we’ve known about this threat for more than a decade, why aren’t we better prepared to detect it?
You would think it would be more of a priority. It’s not a new threat. But we haven’t been doing the research and development. Where we’ve gone wrong in my opinion is that when 9/11 took place, the TSA [Transportation Security Administration] was formed and 55,000 screeners were hired. And the money that had been allocated by Congress for research and development went to pay the screeners’ salaries instead. We basically lost five years.

Had the money gone to research to develop better technology, could the screeners have been able to stop the alleged terrorists in the plot uncovered this week?
Well, the long-term solution is that we need to—at every checkpoint—install technology that is already available today that will let the screeners know if there is an explosive in a bottle. These technologies are not very expensive, and they are available, but they are not widely used. Also, we need more explosive detection systems—they’re like a CAT scan at a hospital, though instead of looking for tumors, they look for explosives—at every checkpoint. X-rays, which are used now, just don’t provide an adequate image for the screeners. They’re good at finding guns and knives, but they’re pretty much useless for finding the components of an explosive device. Finally, we also need to do body scans. There are several different technologies available that examine every surface of the body.

I’d imagine that will be a tough sell to most Americans.
Yes, it seems reprehensible to the American public. But saying, “Take no liquids on board” is pretty useless. All you have to do is put it in a baggie and put it in your pocket and, unless they pat you down, the screeners are not going to see it. For example, if a female walks through the metal detector, the screener has to determine what it is that set off the metal detector. A woman can say that it’s an under-wire bra, and the screener is reluctant to touch her in a private area so the screener isn’t sure whether she actually has an under-wire bra, or if she’s concealing a weapon in her bra. The TSA can’t touch you, so then they cannot really know what you’re carrying. It’s a real dilemma.

Do you think we’ll see more resources go towards developing better detection now?
Congressman Jim Oberstar from Minnesota is one of the most knowledgeable about aviation security issues. After the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988, he made a comment to the effect of: How many of these [terrorist events] do we have to go through before we respond? The problem is that we respond to what happened yesterday today. Richard Reid shows up with a shoe bomb and we start making people take off their shoes, which was silly. Reid was not a bright bulb, but these guys out there today know what they’re doing. Remember: it wasn’t the checkpoint that caught them, but the intelligence work done by the Brits. The real game is played in the intelligence arena, not at the checkpoint. If these guys make it to the checkpoint, you have a much greater challenge.

[ms.peachy]

Let's all fly naked.

[na§tee]

ha! i know.
that interview made me laugh, the informality of it. i can imagine them talking about women's underwires over a cocktail or two.
"naked airlines - more bang for your buck!"

[abcdefz]

i'm no munitions expert, but i've seen enough action movies to know that blasting guns randomly on an airplane is a terrible terrible idea, i don't see massacres being a huge problem



..maybe tasers? Photon pistols?

[enree erzweglle]

The only way that officials on planes should carry guns is if they've been very well trained to do so AND if they have a lot of active experience having that kind of responsibility. The thing is that most of these air marshalls are going to sit on flights breathing stale air all day, eating plastic food, and generally being bored. Which is not exactly a glamorous assignment, so my guess is that the ones who will want a job like that maybe aren't the ones who should get a job like that.

I was travelling right as that UK stuff started to happen last week. On the one flight, I emptied my carry-on of everything that I thought was even remotely liquidy looking but but the x-ray detected something and then a guy had to search the bag until he found that something. It took about 10 minutes and he eventually had to take out every single thing from the bag but he found it. Way in the bottom, nested inside of two smaller bags, was a tiny bottle of perfume that I'd missed. It was ~3/4 the size of a chapstick, but he found it.

[Bob]

..maybe tasers? Photon pistols?

i'm thinking phasers, you know, from star trek?

set phasers to "make everyones ears pop"