Commercial airline security after 9/11

FloridaPilot

FloridaPilot

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
2,456
Location
Florida
Display Name
Display name:
FloridaStudentPilot
Do you think airline security has improved safety for passengers since 9/11?
 
It is fairly likely that the TSA actually makes the traveling public less safe overall - due to a displacement from safer airline travel to car travel for short haul distances. It is estimated that this generates an excess of 500 deaths per year on the highways.

In terms of air travel, TSA procedures likely have no deterrent effect on terrorist attacks, because a terrorist is unlikely to be worried about a 4% chance of being detected, which is all the TSA produces.

It is nearly impossible to address a threat which represents such a low risk by pre-screening (the odds of dying in a terrorist attack on an airplane are about 1/2 that of being struck and killed by lightning). This is a general phenomenon known as the "false positive paradox".

OTOH - hardened cockpit doors may have helped - though their downside was illustrated in the GermanWings suicide.
 
Maybe a tiny, tiny, marginal bit? Perhaps discouraging the not-too-bright wannabe terrorist, someone with a semi-spontaneous "plan"? I can't imagine three or four people of average intelligence, and ability to recon and plan, NOT being able to pull off a seizure.

Thing is, without some obvious security, the more professional bad guys might initiate more attempts, if the bar was set too low. . .sort of like an airport fence? Not highly effective, but add an ocaasional drive by from the local cops, and the two together are more effective - more risk of bring noticed whike gacking with the wire cutters. Add a security guard doing night rounds, maybe more lighting, and each component compliments the others?

Maybe it helped some with the shoe bomber? Came up with a ineffective dodge, based on defeating the security measures?
 
Maybe very slightly, but honestly not much.

The biggest change/improvement in safety is the mindset of the public. That mindset had a lot to do with AQ's success that day. Before that day, hijacking was not uncommon, but hijackers all wanted something. They had demands. You could negotiate. That was just how those incidents usually worked.

In hindsight, the pilots and passengers through no real fault of their own permitted the terrorists to carry out their plan. UAL 93 was the one exception for a couple reasons. One, it happened after the others: passengers turned on their phones and we're getting reports of the other flights and realized what they were dealing with and they had nothing to lose by charging the hijackers. The fact that flight 93 was short a hijacker also was a factor.

Since then, no one (pilot/cabin crew or passenger) is going to let a hijacker pull something like that off. Just look at some incidents since then where passengers beat the crap out of a potential hijacker.

That change of mindset has done more to make air travel safer than anything the government has done.

The TSA really hasn't helped. In fact that agencies ineptitude is more of a potential point of exploitation by terrorists than anything. The TSA really doesn't know jack about anti-terrorism.
 
Agreed Fearless Tower.

It's all about perception with the people. That is why certain security measures are in place so we can "Feel" safer. There are so many holes that it would be impossible to patch them all up.
 
I agree with fearless on the mindset change. Take the Southwest example. Guy was threatening the passengers and he ended up hog tied in the lavatory. I've also seen the flip side but that is also a given. We threw one lady off when she wouldn't stop harassing a Muslim teenager. The poor kid was doing his homework on the way back to college.......
 
Last edited:
PeterNSteinmetz said:
OTOH - hardened cockpit doors may have helped - though their downside was illustrated in the GermanWings suicide.
Click to expand...

Been retired 3 years from the airlines and you're right, they're not getting in the cockpit. There's a crash ax always in the cockpit and believe me it would be used. There are other methods awaiting anyone breaching the cockpit which I prefer not to discuss. But, yes, the human element is often the weakest link and it's very difficult, if not impossible, to depend against that.

In the cabin, as has been mentioned, passengers are not going to be passive.
 
Last edited:
ARFlyer said:
I've also seen the flip side but that is also a given. We've threw one lady off when she wouldn't stop harassing a Muslim teenager. The poor kid was doing his homework on the way back to college.......
Click to expand...

After 9/11 when flights were resumed (3 days after?) I told my wife my FO (copilot) was Iranian. Oh man, she freaked. Didn't want me flying with him. I did and it was fine. He came over to the US after the Shah was over thrown.
 
think about it, who has the most unrestricted access to the airport? the lowest paid, least educated, and probably a high number of undocumented people.
thats right, the people that clean the airport. they have access to just about every place in the airport and i would guess the least amount of background checking of any group at the airport.

bob
 
unsafervguy said:
think about it, who has the most unrestricted access to the airport? the lowest paid, least educated, and probably a high number of undocumented people.
thats right, the people that clean the airport. they have access to just about every place in the airport and i would guess the least amount of background checking of any group at the airport.

bob
Click to expand...

Yup, and the ones that load luggage, service the plane etc don't go thru security. In fairness, neither do pilots and FAs at home base, at least in ATL where I was based. Been gone 3 years so might have changed.
 
giphy.gif



Is this a serious question?
 
FloridaPilot said:
Do you think airline security has improved safety for passengers since 9/11?
Click to expand...

No.

We have equipment and procedures to protect pilots from their passengers. And after Germanwings 9525 the debate turned to how to protect passengers from their pilots. :eek2:

Does anybody seriously think dumping your bottled water & jamming shave cream and a razor into a small standard issue plastic bag in your carry-on is making things safer? Last week on a commercial flight to Seattle I spent an hour and 40 minutes going through US CBP pre-clearance and then security. That was longer than the actual flight time.
 
Last edited:
Sundancer said:
Maybe it helped some with the shoe bomber? Came up with a ineffective dodge, based on defeating the security measures?
Click to expand...
I believe he boarded outside the U.S. Interesting idea, though I am not aware of any data that he was limited in his attempt by the procedures in place at that foreign airport. But perhaps others have more data on that.
 
[QUOTE="James331, post: 2138237]


Is this a serious question?[/QUOTE]

I wondered that as well. The trouble is that about 1/2 of U.S. citizens believe the TSA is effective at preventing terrorist attacks. This is why it is so hard to implement more effective changes.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
I believe he boarded outside the U.S. Interesting idea, though I am not aware of any data that he was limited in his attempt by the procedures in place at that foreign airport. But perhaps others have more data on that.
Click to expand...
Roger, I haven't any info on that, either. . .could be he was just inept, as well as uninformed. . .
 
No. reference the guy in LA that ran to the TSA. Shot the TSA Agent. If he wanted to he could have run to a boarding airline. with the cockpit door open and hijacked the airline off the ground. Security protocol was put into place to prevent in air hijacking. Security Theater is what it is called. We only plan for what people have already done.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Maybe very slightly, but honestly not much.

...

That change of mindset has done more to make air travel safer than anything the government has done.

The TSA really hasn't helped. In fact that agencies ineptitude is more of a potential point of exploitation by terrorists than anything. The TSA really doesn't know jack about anti-terrorism.
Click to expand...

And there is one of the biggest problems with the current approach using pre-screening with the TSA. We spend $8.1 billion a year, invading the privacy of the traveling public, 660 million times a year, to achieve no real improvement in security while likely causing an excess 500 deaths on the roadways each year. That means in the 15 years since 2001, our polices have killed 2.5 times more U.S. citizen deaths than the original attacks.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
I believe he boarded outside the U.S. Interesting idea, though I am not aware of any data that he was limited in his attempt by the procedures in place at that foreign airport. But perhaps others have more data on that.
Click to expand...
It was a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. So he did board outside the U.S.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
 
GlennAB1 said:
We know it's mostly for intimidation, I have to believe that improves security.
Click to expand...

I will politely disagree with that assessment.

No argument it's intimidating for many. But then I'm sure we all agree the intimidated grandparents trying to fly to Des Moines to visit family at Thanksgiving (and all the other sheeple passengers, everywhere in the world, dutifully lined up just like them) aren't the problem.

I seriously doubt any of the perpetrators of 9/11 would have been in the least bit intimidated by the security procedures in place today. More likely the jihadists take it as a challenge that they will in time beat spectacularly, just as 9/11 was the second, successful attempt to knock down a NY WTC building.
 
My entire Army career has been in combat arms. We have a saying that if you can't shoot, move or communicate, at least look good standing still. I don't think that the TSA fits in to any of these options....
 
yetti said:
No. reference the guy in LA that ran to the TSA. Shot the TSA Agent. If he wanted to he could have run to a boarding airline. with the cockpit door open and hijacked the airline off the ground. Security protocol was put into place to prevent in air hijacking. Security Theater is what it is called. We only plan for what people have already done.
Click to expand...
No
 
It certainly does improve security.
To what extent nobody knows, as it's more of a deterrent than a "catch trying to board".
 
mscard88 said:
Yup, and the ones that load luggage, service the plane etc don't go thru security. In fairness, neither do pilots and FAs at home base, at least in ATL where I was based. Been gone 3 years so might have changed.
Click to expand...

The line workers and baggage handlers and janitors and wheelchair pushers at DIA did have to go through security and had background checks and SIDA badges. The workers for the concourses went through security out where they parked and were bussed onto the field securely.

I controlled/viewed/edited their access levels too. Unless you were ops like I was, your badge would only get you in areas you were allowed to work in. All of those swipes were logged and trackable. You could be escorted, but you had to call me and get it approved or else the doors would alarm for too many people going through and you would get guards sent to find you and hand you a violation. Also written by me.

Then again I work the line at Meacham currently and there are no SIDA badges and I get close to aircraft. There are coded gates but that is about it. The company I work for background checked me. Ops drives around pretty frequently but I think if you looked like you were supposed to be there that no one would bother you.

My two cents. I saw a lot of TSA calling for us to help find water bottles that they noticed and let go. Then again they did find a good number of loaded firearms that weren't declared and stuff like that. Having seen/interacted with them, I would say about 50/50. Maybe 40/60 useful to not.
 
James331 said:
giphy.gif



Is this a serious question?
Click to expand...

Yes,

I worked six blocks from where the World Trade Center went down. I was at work that day (I worked for NYU Downtown Hospital) It was a lot of bodies that came through because it was the only hospital in the area. It totally changed my whole perspective on life and people in general. Long story short, I noticed the beef up in security after 9/11 and I get the regular "Feel up" by TSA when flying but I don't "Feel" any safer just inconvenienced. So that is why I created the question to hear different perspectives so maybe I can change my own.

So yes, it was a serious question :)
 
So let's say a plane in the USA does get taken over. What next? When 9/11 happened the only plan the FAA had was to deal with incoming threats, not deal with friendly's that become hostile. ATC could not order up fighters. A call, to someone and then maybe to SC in Omaha. Or a couple calls in between. How long now does it take to have ATC suspect a plane and then to get fighters? I am still betting 20-30 minutes.
 
yetti said:
So let's say a plane in the USA does get taken over. What next? When 9/11 happened the only plan the FAA had was to deal with incoming threats, not deal with friendly's that become hostile. ATC could not order up fighters. A call, to someone and then maybe to SC in Omaha. Or a couple calls in between. How long now does it take to have ATC suspect a plane and then to get fighters? I am still betting 20-30 minutes.
Click to expand...

Google alert scrambles in the Washington DC area. You'll be surprised how quickly those F-16s are up. The problem with 9/11 is it was after the Cold War and most of our alert birds were stood down due to not as big a threat, accordingly only a few bases had alert missions and they were designed for outside threats. Now there are a lot of alert bases ready to go within minutes. Doubt it would take 20-30 minutes.
 
The hardened doors were a much needed improvement. Needed since the hijacking era of the 1960s & 70s. The first time I worked on a commercial jet I was surprised by the flimsy cockpit doors and how easy they were to open when they were locked. But it was accepted as just the way it was back then. In my opinion if the government had taken charge of things back then when the industry failed to and demanded strengthened doors, 9-11 could not have happened as it did. But then, that would have been overreach, right? Nope. Instead, we did end up with overreach after 9-11 in the form of the TSA, TFRs, etc.

I agree with Fearless regarding the behavior of pax and crew. Once it was known that this was not your "run of the mill" hijacking where everyone is typically released unharmed, the game changes. Once you no longer benefit from being passive until it is over but quite the contrary, it becomes a matter of self-preservation. That was what Flight 93 pax were doing, engaging in self-preservation. The notion that they acted to prevent another crash into a building out of some noble desire is intellectually dishonest though it does make for a nice story. They wanted to save themselves but were unable. The fact that the potential target was saved as a result is mere coincidence though definitely a good thing.

I believe that the new doors and the paradigm shift in the minds of the flying public does far more to not only act as a deterrent but will also be the only difference if another hijacking is actually attempted. I put zero faith in the abilities of the TSA to do anything constructive.

And yes, the people working on the ramp loading baggage and cargo are probably the biggest potential threat going forward. While the doors and pax should prevent another 9-11 style attack, we are still at grave risk from bombings and sabotage. Proper vetting of those personnel is where more of the focus should be.
 
FloridaPilot said:
Yes,

I worked six blocks from where the World Trade Center went down. I was at work that day (I worked for NYU Downtown Hospital) It was a lot of bodies that came through because it was the only hospital in the area. It totally changed my whole perspective on life and people in general. Long story short, I noticed the beef up in security after 9/11 and I get the regular "Feel up" by TSA when flying but I don't "Feel" any safer just inconvenienced. So that is why I created the question to hear different perspectives so maybe I can change my own.

So yes, it was a serious question :)
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you were tramuatized, I'm also sorry that in that volnerable time the government took advantage of you with it's a sales pitch for "security"

Little bit of a satire but true

Frankly we can no longer call ourselves the land of the free and the home of the brave, our freedoms have been cut for "the children"' and "9/11" and we are not brave enough to tell the government NO, as we allowed emotions based on the actions of a few mad men to change our country, in that way the terrorists won, we allowed them to tell us how to live our lives.

This country is her constitution, any man who would trade some freedoms for a little illusion of saftey, well that sorry SOB deserves nether.
 
SkyDog58 said:
The hardened doors were a much needed improvement. Needed since the hijacking era of the 1960s & 70s. The first time I worked on a commercial jet I was surprised by the flimsy cockpit doors and how easy they were to open when they were locked. But it was accepted as just the way it was back then. In my opinion if the government had taken charge of things back then when the industry failed to and demanded strengthened doors, 9-11 could not have happened as it did. But then, that would have been overreach, right? .
Click to expand...
Why weren't more secure doors installed back then? One of the big reasons is airline management. Anything that adds cost they fight against. All the time.
 
I'm going to be devil's advocate for a second. For the record, I think TSA employees leave a lot (and I mean a lot) to be desired. Anyway, do you not think all the security acts as some type of deterrence? Maybe not for the more sophisticated terrorists for which they were designed, but what about your neighbor that had a bad day and thought taking his .357 on board and waving it around would be a big stress reliever for him?
 
rbridges said:
I'm going to be devil's advocate for a second. For the record, I think TSA employees leave a lot (and I mean a lot) to be desired. Anyway, do you not think all the security acts as some type of deterrence? Maybe not for the more sophisticated terrorists for which they were designed, but what about your neighbor that had a bad day and thought taking his .357 on board and waving it around would be a big stress reliever for him?
Click to expand...

Well first off, the old simple metal detectors that had before we went all "terrorist" crazy would have easily picked up a big old 357, heck they used to light up like a Christmas tree over my key chain.

But ok, I'll run with your idea.
So instead of having 100 folks to shoot at in a plane, he's got 300 to shoot at standing in line with their hands full at a TSA line??
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
Well first off, the old simple metal detectors that had before we went all "terrorist" crazy would have easily picked up a big old 357, heck they used to light up like a Christmas tree over my key chain.

But ok, I'll run with your idea.
So instead of having 100 folks to shoot at in a plane, he's got 300 to shoot at standing in line with their hands full at a TSA line??
Click to expand...

but the TSA could say they kept the airplane safe. :D
 
James331 said:
Well first off, the old simple metal detectors that had before we went all "terrorist" crazy would have easily picked up a big old 357, heck they used to light up like a Christmas tree over my key chain.

But ok, I'll run with your idea.
So instead of having 100 folks to shoot at in a plane, he's got 300 to shoot at standing in line with their hands full at a TSA line??
Click to expand...

Make that 300 UNARMED folks in line.
 
I've never flown internationally so maybe others can help me out. What percentage of flights originate in locations where the TSA procedures are employed? Are they more or less stringent compared to other countries? It seems to me there are countless opportunities in other countries to more easily board an airliner with evil intent. It doesn't seem to be happening.

Do all carriers have the reinforced cockpit doors or just USA based?
 
unsafervguy said:
think about it, who has the most unrestricted access to the airport? the lowest paid, least educated, and probably a high number of undocumented people.
thats right, the people that clean the airport. they have access to just about every place in the airport and i would guess the least amount of background checking of any group at the airport.

bob
Click to expand...

Guessing does a huge disservice. This one is full of prejudices, and has clearly never heard of a SIDA badge. Those might SUCK, but you're not going to get through the fence without someone looking at you and your record.
 
jetrep said:
I've never flown internationally so maybe others can help me out. What percentage of flights originate in locations where the TSA procedures are employed? Are they more or less stringent compared to other countries? It seems to me there are countless opportunities in other countries to more easily board an airliner with evil intent. It doesn't seem to be happening.

Do all carriers have the reinforced cockpit doors or just USA based?
Click to expand...
A lot of countries will let you keep your shoes on and seem more relaxed.
 
Depends on the country, some of the Mideast places the security guys take themselves SUPER serious, maybe the guys who couldn't hack it in the military, huge pain the arse and they don't have much common sense ether when it comes to what is and isn't a threat, rote "knowledge" 100%
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top