What is your idea for "reasonable" security for scheduled air service?

alaskaflyer

alaskaflyer

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
7,544
Location
Smith Valley, Nevada
Display Name
Display name:
Alaskaflyer
OK, I've heard a lot about what people feel is NOT reasonable. I'm curious about what folks feel IS reasonable checkpoint security (or - heck - let's not bracket ourselves with preconceived notions such as checkpoints...share your ideas here.)
 
Nothing is more effective than a trained eye and good observation. I can't imagine how much is missed because the screeners are so intent on entering bags and pockets, they miss the action and demeanor of the travelers. Once you start questioning them, you've helped them establish a pattern where the person will likely be off kilter and more difficult to read.
 
alaskaflyer said:
OK, I've heard a lot about what people feel is NOT reasonable. I'm curious about what folks feel IS reasonable checkpoint security (or - heck - let's not bracket ourselves with preconceived notions such as checkpoints...share your ideas here.)
Click to expand...

The current "system" would be just fine, if the screeners were allowed to use their own judgement, and the screeners were smart enough to do so, and they cared more about safety than power-tripping.
 
KennyFlys said:
Nothing is more effective than a trained eye and good observation. I can't imagine how much is missed because the screeners are so intent on entering bags and pockets, they miss the action and demeanor of the travelers. Once you start questioning them, you've helped them establish a pattern where the person will likely be off kilter and more difficult to read.
Click to expand...

That is very similar to the Israeli system as I understand it, as well as US immigration.
 
Well, how many years did we go before September 11th without a successful terrorist attack?

Seems to me, the way it was before, when there was not some monolithic government agency that thinks it is above the same laws that the police force routine ignore, would work just fine.

So I say the following would be just fine:
You walk up to a ticket counter and are asked "Did you pack your own bag? Has your bag been out of your possession at all?"

Then you proceed to your gate, with your family in tow, who can now say goodbye to you as you enter the jetway. Maybe a simple metal detector like government buildings have would be in there somewhere.

Again, it worked for decades and decades with very few issues. Seems we have more issues since they changed our "security" than we had before.
 
Simple - the current system of screening, as well as most of our other "security" theater measures, assume that bad people are stupid. It inconveniences the good ones and doesn't do anything to the bad guys. There's not much you can reasonably do about bad guys, so I wouldn't pretend to try like we are right now.

People don't realize how much money we waste with feel-good security that is completely ineffective. My main goal at airports would be to stop crazy and/or not so bright people. The whole "behavior" observation **** the TSA is so proud of has no scientific background, so I'd do away with that completely.

So...xray bags, make sure people aren't carrying a metal machete, and that's about it. Could be done with 1/8 the workforce the TSA has. Which is why they won't do it. And of course - the reason we didn't have any terrorist attacks involving planes before 9/11 wasn't due to the security. And the reason we haven't had any since then wasn't, either.

-Felix
 
Strap everyone into their seat with a locked belt. Armed flight attendants will escort those needing to use the facilities on an individual basis. Luggage is not screened, but all luggage is carried aboard a separate, unmanned aircraft that flies in trail. Each passenger is allowed one small carryon bag, similar to a medium-sized woman's purse for personal effects. It is thoroughly inspected before boarding.
 
KennyFlys said:
Once you start questioning them, you've helped them establish a pattern where the person will likely be off kilter and more difficult to read.
Click to expand...
Personally I'd rather have it the way it is than having questioning by security in order to board.
 
Heh. Seven posts vs. one-hundred and forty-two. It appears as though people prefer throwing bricks to building anything with them :lol:
 
The way we did it in the field. We watched how people behaved. That's how Mossad does it.

Our current system is.......foolhardy. Instead of 60 people who don't have any formal education checking items, how about 12 people who are trained, sharp, and on their marks?
 
One gun, 9 rounds to each pilot. Locked and unbreakable cabin door. Let the airline decide from that point how much or how little security to provide. Concealed carry license by pax if they want to be armed.

The tough thing to find is not guns or knives, it's things that may go 'pop' very loud. Imp-exp are very hard to find, and our current system does nothing about finding them(except no liquids or gels). It's going to be a mess when they bad guys figure that out.
 
Everskyward said:
Personally I'd rather have it the way it is than having questioning by security in order to board.
Click to expand...
That's what I'm saying... stop the idiotic searches and just watch the person. Once they look in a bag, they get into questions and that only changes the tone and waste more time.
 
KennyFlys said:
That's what I'm saying... stop the idiotic searches and just watch the person. Once they look in a bag, they get into questions and that only changes the tone and waste more time.
Click to expand...

Well, they can ask all the questions they want of me, the only answer they'll get is 'am I being detained?' If it's yes, then they better arrest me at some point, cause I don't answer questions from the feds.
 
bbchien said:
The way we did it in the field. We watched how people behaved. That's how Mossad does it.

Our current system is.......foolhardy. Instead of 60 people who don't have any formal education checking items, how about 12 people who are trained, sharp, and on their marks?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, replacing x-rays and metal detectors would probably make the screening process quite a bit longer, necessatating even more screeners. You would also need somebody available that speaks one of the several dozen languages and dialects commonly heard in some airports. And there is nothing preventing the determined terrorist from training on how to not trigger suspicion.

People need to realize that the current checkpoint security procedures are just one layer of the overall security system. Metal detectors, X-ray machines, behavioral observation, FBI watch lists, Air Marshals, FFDOs, aircrew procedures, employee background checks and even passenger attitude are just some parts of the system. None of them is perfect by it self, but putting them all together creates an effective system. Like stacking up slices of Swiss cheese. You can look through the holes of each slice, but when they are stacked up, they become opaque.

I think adding the behavioral questioning like the Israelis sure couldn't hurt, but are we willing to play the fiscal and temporal price. To continue the rant; Requiring uniformed aircrew to do the whole X-ray/metal detector when they are going to be at the controls of an aircraft in an hour is very illogical. CREWPASS needs to be up and running full speed yesterday!
 
Ok, time for some free thinking on the question.

Let's do security the old fashoned way, used uniformed, armed officers on each flight. Add a layer of security by isolating the cockpit from the cattle car. Total isolation. Yep, give up seats so the crew has their own galley and lav. Then require or strongly encourage all CWP holders to carry on flights. Tell New York, Wisconsin, California (and any other anti-handgun states) to sit down and shut up on the handgun issue. No security checkpoints required.

There might be a few bloody flights but there wouldn't be any suicide crashes into buildings. Lots of knee-jerk reactions to CWP out there but it has proven to be a very safe system in the so called "shall issue" states.

Sure the armed officers on board would cost money but all the TSA folks would be gone. The higher costs would be offset by the time saved for business travellers. Of course that vacationing family would take it in the shorts on ticket prices but at least they'd know they were on a safe flight.

Maybe the objections to this one will get some creative juices flowing in folks out there...
 
I was expecting much more from the system in Tel Aviv, but it was brief and to the point, didn't take more than a minute or two. But I think the gearbox of the questioner might have been turning at a speed unknown to the doofi at DFW who couldn't track a wounded elephant through fresh snow.
maddog52 said:
Unfortunately, replacing x-rays and metal detectors would probably make the screening process quite a bit longer, necessatating even more screeners. You would also need somebody available that speaks one of the several dozen languages and dialects commonly heard in some airports. And there is nothing preventing the determined terrorist from training on how to not trigger suspicion.

People need to realize that the current checkpoint security procedures are just one layer of the overall security system. Metal detectors, X-ray machines, behavioral observation, FBI watch lists, Air Marshals, FFDOs, aircrew procedures, employee background checks and even passenger attitude are just some parts of the system. None of them is perfect by it self, but putting them all together creates an effective system. Like stacking up slices of Swiss cheese. You can look through the holes of each slice, but when they are stacked up, they become opaque.

I think adding the behavioral questioning like the Israelis sure couldn't hurt, but are we willing to play the fiscal and temporal price. To continue the rant; Requiring uniformed aircrew to do the whole X-ray/metal detector when they are going to be at the controls of an aircraft in an hour is very illogical. CREWPASS needs to be up and running full speed yesterday!
Click to expand...
 
docmirror said:
Well, they can ask all the questions they want of me, the only answer they'll get is 'am I being detained?' If it's yes, then they better arrest me at some point, cause I don't answer questions from the feds.
Click to expand...

Then I imagine you'll get the same reply you get currently. You don't need to fly the friendly skies.
 
Use the Israeli model. PROFILE.

Airline security and police work in general should not be PC! Hire trained police officers to be TSA not McDonald's rejects. As others have said, fewer, but more qualified personnel.

Are we building bricks yet? :rolleyes2:
 
Keep the cockpit doors and the armed pilots. Keep the air marshals. Put the screening back to the way it was pre-9/11.

Explosives may still kill the people on board the airplane. Oh well, that's the risk you take when you fly. Don't like it, don't fly. The other measures will prevent hijacking the airplane and threatening people on the ground.
 
TMetzinger said:
Keep the cockpit doors and the armed pilots. Keep the air marshals. Put the screening back to the way it was pre-9/11.

Explosives may still kill the people on board the airplane. Oh well, that's the risk you take when you fly. Don't like it, don't fly. The other measures will prevent hijacking the airplane and threatening people on the ground.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of this except I don't think you need armed pilots when you have locked cockpit doors. If you want to fly you take your chances.
 
Any rational system of air security must take into account the lesson of United 93: no cabin full of American passengers will ever again meekly submit to having their deaths turned into some terrorist's special political statement.

The logical extension of that is to give passengers the tools they need to defeat terrorists. Yes, that means taking full advantage of the Second Amendment (the NRA was absolutely right when they said that was "America's original homeland security"). Let passengers carry the weapon of their choice aboard commercial flights. If you wish, limit it to those who have earned the right to carry weapons in their home state, and provide some way for those who live in states where this basic right is denied to the average citizen (California, I'm looking at you) to earn it for themselves, so a terrorist doesn't have to simply pick a flight out of LAX to do his dirty work.

We've seen that the TSA always looks for the last threat, and never relaxes anything once that threat has been defeated. The endpoint of that is that people won't be able to carry anything on with them, and their bags will be taken apart and inspected piece by piece before being loaded. Does this make sense to anyone?

It's time to overhaul the entire security model in the US.

Of course, this makes too much sense, and the folks who think guns are nasty, icky, eeeeevil things that turn rational people into crazed killers will fight it tooth and nail. In the current political climate, that would spell the end of the idea, even if some brave politician (an oxymoron if ever there was one) were to raise it.
 
Jay- I like your thinking on this point. We would probably need to save the security theater for international flights where the Second Amendment is "an American thing".

Not only United 93, but also that flight with Richard Reid (sp?)- the "shoe bomber". He was stopped by the passengers too.

If the Richard REALLY thought it through, he would have been wearing explosive underwear. Instead of removing shoes, the TSA lines would be ,uh, "interesting".
 
One thing I would like to see is that before you go to the check in counter your luggage for check in is xrayed with you standing there. If a search needs to take place it takes place right then. Afterwards you can securely lock your luggage with real locks the that thiefing TSA guys cannot get into. Most international airports have that set up and it works great. Tel Aviv airport does it one step better. They x-ray all the luggage and then if a serach needs to take place you are and your luggage is taken to a screening place and the x-ray can be recalled by the baggage checker while they search.

The other thing is that the 3oz liquid stuff should be stopped. There is no reason for that. Also I would like to see TSA reduced from the way they staff to jsut providing oversight and supervision to contract security screeners like we used to have. The only reason 9/11 worked was not because of the contract screeners but that knives of less than 3" were allowed. That change alone has stopped a 9/11 attack from happening again. The TSA jackbooted thugs have not made us safer at all.
 
maddog52 said:
People need to realize that the current checkpoint security procedures are just one layer of the overall security system.
Click to expand...

And ignores the big holes in the other layers.

At DTW they had a guy sneaking his girlfriend onto an airplane for???
 
smigaldi said:
One thing I would like to see is that before you go to the check in counter your luggage for check in is xrayed with you standing there. If a search needs to take place it takes place right then. Afterwards you can securely lock your luggage with real locks the that thiefing TSA guys cannot get into. Most international airports have that set up and it works great. Tel Aviv airport does it one step better. They x-ray all the luggage and then if a serach needs to take place you are and your luggage is taken to a screening place and the x-ray can be recalled by the baggage checker while they search.

The other thing is that the 3oz liquid stuff should be stopped. There is no reason for that. Also I would like to see TSA reduced from the way they staff to jsut providing oversight and supervision to contract security screeners like we used to have. The only reason 9/11 worked was not because of the contract screeners but that knives of less than 3" were allowed. That change alone has stopped a 9/11 attack from happening again. The TSA jackbooted thugs have not made us safer at all.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on the baggage screening steps steps in Tel Aviv. It's a more logical and thourough method of doing things.

The 3 oz rule actually makes sense based on threat assesments I've seen. But it doesn't make sense when you can buy all the inflamable consumables you want inside security at any airport.

The major reason 9/11 worked was because the common practice at the time when dealing with hijackings was to cooperate and keep things calm. That has changed along with the attitude of the flying public and is probably the major reason for the lack of successful similar attacks.
 
Anthony said:
Use the Israeli model. PROFILE.

Airline security and police work in general should not be PC! Hire trained police officers to be TSA not McDonald's rejects. As others have said, fewer, but more qualified personnel.

Are we building bricks yet? :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

Not legal in this country. For better or for worse, it's just not.
 
I think they should post guards at the edges of the secure areas on the ramp (i.e., where the red lines on the pavement are). That would eliminate the need for the silly badging and escort rules for the GA side of the airport.

The guards would need to be stationed next to the terminal building to keep them out of the way of taxiing aircraft, and they would need to be trained in how to behave around aircraft (e.g., how to keep from getting sucked into jet engines, etc.) for those times when it was necessary to venture away from the terminal to deal with a security issue.
 
Last edited:
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Not legal in this country. For better or for worse, it's just not.
Click to expand...

Anthony said:
Police do it every day. What law does it violate?
Click to expand...

Not the way the Israelis do it, but admittedly I only know what I have read about Israeli security.

Yes, we do "profile", but that is based on actions and behavior, not the actor's race, or membership in one of the other protected classes.
 
Anthony said:
Police do it every day. What law does it violate?
Click to expand...

The 4th, 13th, and 14th Amendments for starters. And every single State constitution.

Of course, I presumed you were referring to profiling based upon race, age, gender, nationality, appearance, skin color, accent, etc.

If you were referring to profiling based upon observations regarding behavior and conduct at the time and scene (which isn't "profiling," as that term is used in the law), I apologize.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
The 4th, 13th, and 14th Amendments for starters. And every single State constitution.

Of course, I presumed you were referring to profiling based upon race, age, gender, nationality, appearance, skin color, accent, etc.

If you were referring to profiling based upon observations regarding behavior and conduct at the time and scene (which isn't "profiling," as that term is used in the law), I apologize.
Click to expand...



Yes, observations like you and Richard said. Not race, etc. Sorry, I should have been more specific.
 
Anthony said:
Yes, observations like you and Richard said. Not race, etc. Sorry, I should have been more specific.
Click to expand...

Sorry - like I said, "profiling" has a pretty specific (and negative) connotation in the law, and of course that's what I immediately jumped to.

Personally, I think that like with anything in life, there's no silver bullet. As has been mentioned, you forego things like metal detectors in favor of "observations" alone, and people will learn how to get around the observations. In other words, you can't put all your eggs in one basket....
 
I travel enough overseas (UK and Middle East) to compare the level of Security that I pass through verse the TSA "Smoke and Mirror" show abroad. Sadly, we have yet to learn from our neighbors across the pond at what tried and true security measures work.
 
smigaldi said:
The only reason 9/11 worked was not because of the contract screeners but that knives of less than 3" were allowed. That change alone has stopped a 9/11 attack from happening again. The TSA jackbooted thugs have not made us safer at all.
Click to expand...

And maybe less safe...

I've heard (unconfirmed, of course) that when USA1549 went into the Hudson, they got very worried when they were all out on the raft(s) and realized nobody had anything to cut the tethers loose with - If the plane sank, it would have taken the rafts down with it.

Someone more familiar with A320 systems will have to verify that one. :dunno:
 
maddog52 said:
The 3 oz rule actually makes sense based on threat assesments I've seen.
Click to expand...
Sorry the 3oz rule make no sense regardless of any threat assessment. The reason why is simple. 3oz is not a magic quantity.

A person may actually contain a quart of material on board, it just has to be packed into 3oz containers that fit into that quart bag. If a chemical bomb were to take more than 1 quart of a chemical what is to stop one person from bringing on board a quart of chemical a with another person bringing on a quart of chemical b. Working together they mix their compound together and BAM!

The other thing is that you can do a lot of damage with a single 3oz chemical IF it is the right chemical. Say get 3oz of a nerve, blood, or blister agent on board and see the damage that can be done. These people are state sponsored so it is not unreasonable to expect them to gain access to those type of compounds.

But they could go real simple again. Say a few 3oz containers of chlorine bleach mixed with a few 3 oz containers of NH4. That'll be fun on board the plane!

While that last one may not bring down a plane it will do enough. There will be injuries, there will be panic, there will be a loss of of confidence in the America system of transport and thus affect our economy. Terrorism only has to make people scared enough to change their behavior to win.
 
What allowed 9/11 to happen was the policy to do what the hijackers wanted. Now, if a plane gets hijacked you're going to have a bunch of people jumping the hijackers and beating the living sh*t out of them.
 
docmirror said:
One gun, 9 rounds to each pilot. Locked and unbreakable cabin door. Let the airline decide from that point how much or how little security to provide. Concealed carry license by pax if they want to be armed.

The tough thing to find is not guns or knives, it's things that may go 'pop' very loud. Imp-exp are very hard to find, and our current system does nothing about finding them(except no liquids or gels). It's going to be a mess when they bad guys figure that out.
Click to expand...

Why only 9 rounds ? I think mine will hold 14:ihih:
 
1) eliminate the ID check at security and stop the program to purchase expensive machines to read the bar-codes on the boarding passes. Revenue protection is a problem for the airlines, not the TSA. The no-fly and watch lists are ineffective. Redirect the money to more effective measures. Paperwork doesn't stop terrorists.

2) eliminate the 3-ounce restriction. It is ineffective and wastes a lot of time. Redirect the resources to more effective measures.

3) eliminate the random gate checks. Either do a good job at the checkpoint or admit you're incompetant. These checks serve only to harass customers (or in the case of WN, deny folks the priority boarding they've paid for).

4) institute capable profiling and observation with well-trained and experienced folks. Street sense.... most long-time cops have it. A 20 hour TSA training program can't possibly accomplish much.

5) do basic x-ray and metal detect screening. Run a quick chemical test on liquids... like certain other countries do. Eliminate the "dragnet" mentality and focus on weapons (not cash money, pot, etc).

6) do your best to speed up the lines. Acknowledge that a determined terrorist can take out more people and do more harm if they set off an IED in the middle of a checkpoint line at a busy airport during a high-traffic period. A 20 minute wait (BTDT) in a serpentine lne might have as many people as a plane load. So you've kept a plane from coming down, but you've caused as much death/injury and as much property damage what with the expensive check-point machines/building construction.

7) focus on on-board deterrence.

8) focus on managing the risk, not trying to eliminate ALL risk (can't be done).

The problem is that we started with a flawed system that folks figured a way around. Holes were plugged haphazardly. Now the overall structure is made up of "patches", meaning that the system is weaker than it might be with a true, bottom up risk-management design.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top