ALL things considered, are we safer?

[Rollingthunder]

All things considered are we, as workers and/or pax, safer in commercial aviation than before 11Sep01?

[Avman]

In terms of potential terrorism the answer is an emphatic "NO". However, authorities cannot be seen to admit that there is no 100% security against determined suicidal terrorists. Look at Israel. So, the so-called security we see and have to succumb to at airports is designed to reassure the general public that something positive is being done and all is well. None of it will actually stop a determined terrorist attack - which will next time no doubt come from a diiferent quarter exploiting the numerous other security flaws which still exist at and around all airports. On the other hand if 100% fail-safe security could be and was imposed, flying would cease to be an acceptable mode of transport and the industry would collapse.

[Nigel PAX]

I think we are safer in the sense that both crew and pax are now aware of the threat from suicidal terrorists. For example, the shoe bomber was only stopped thanks to this new level of awareness. Prior to Sep 11, he would probably have succeeded, and if the plane had gone down, it's unlikely that anyone would have known why.

Future hijackers and suicide attackers will probably need to be present in larger numbers or have more powerful weapons in order to succeed, which might be harder to accomplish with the new level of security, however cack-handed it might be.

[Evening Star]

Group of friends travelling from various UK airports a few weeks ago to an Alpine resort. One guy forgets to put his Swiss army knife in hold luggage. Not asked about it, gets through security and x-ray with no problem, and only realizes when he unpacks at other end. Led by his wife, he gets the rough end of the teasing. Meanwhile, travelling from another airport is a gay man who takes great care over his appearance. Security notice and confiscate a truly tiny pair of scissors. Sister of first guy is one of my friends, and says that nobody was impressed by the "lack of sense" shown by either security control.

[lomapaseo]

Sounds like another very subjective poll.

It's unrealistic to assume that each respondent will consider "all" the same things that the other respondents have considered.

We ought to go back to just having discussions and forget about useless polls.

[boofhead]

Treating passengers and crew as criminals, with unreasonable searches and confiscation of knitting needles and nail clippers is not a way to improve security, it is only a sham and those responsible will be truly to blame for the next terror attack. Nothing the authorities are doing now will prevent it, since only crew and passengers are subject to screening. Thousands of people, many of whom have had no background check, are allowed free access to the airport.
Surveys show that security is able to catch less than a half of the guns, knives and such carried on board, which tells us two things:
1. Security is useless, since only ONE weapon in the hands of a criminal has to get through. And the way it is set up now, nobody else on board will be able to resist, since all the good guys have been disarmed.
2. The reports of all the guns, knives, and other sharp objects getting through, and indeed all the ones caught, show that it is not the weapon that hijacks airplanes, it is not the gun, nor the knife...it is the criminal. If every person on board had a gun, security would not be compromised, since the vast majority of us are honest, law abiding people. We would (and have) do our best to stop any criminal act on any airplane we were on, and if we had reasonable weapons of our own, it would be easier for us, the good guys. Concentrating on potential weapons is stupid, we should be looking at the real threat.
The tools for better security include profiling, better ID and observation. Crews need to be more alert, and I do not mean that they should refuse travel to any Arab families or Secret Service officers. Any person who has a weapon permit should be welcomed on board. Give 'em a free ticket, I say.
It is way past time for the FAA to have come up with a new policy for handling hijackers, especially as guidance for the crews. I always get a laugh when I read how some pilot has briefed his crew and passengers on what to do if they have a threat on board, since he would then be subject to a law suit and if he expects the FAA to back him up, forgetaboutit. The 'shoe bomber' was stopped not because of any action by 'security' or the authorities, but because one of those they are treating as a criminal (a passenger) caught him trying to set fire to his shoes.
The whole and sole point of the gross enlargement of the security apparatus (including the Homeland Security division of the US govt) is to expand government and take more control over us, those who pay their salaries. It is not to better security, since all those actions that are plainly needed are not being done. So long as we allow this charade to continue, we should not expect safer skies, but rather higher costs, less development, more hassles and fewer paying customers.

[MrNosy]

I think that while every one is attempting to address the various security issues there is the risk that less attention will be paid to every day safety. Additionally with the financial stress being placed on the airline industry and the need to find money to carry out various actions associated with security there is again a risk of reduced spend on safety etc.

[Conan The Barber]

As already mentioned in other threads, those who perpetrated the Sep. 11 outrages, did not violate any airport security restrictions.

The weapons/intruments they carried onboard where all legal.
And that is why they those them.

if anybody is going to dublicate their act, it will again be with legal 'weapons'. That is why profiling is the most important tool to improve security.

[pholooh]

"Hearts and Minds" is the only way to win the war against terrorism. America needs to learn that. That is why the SAS was very effective in most of its campaigns.
I don't think there is an effective hearts and mind campaign going on. And if there is, the military campaign in Afghanistan is only counteractive.
Putting National guard troops in the airport is the dumbest idea anyone came up with. AEROPLANES get hijacked not airports. So they should be put on aircraft.

[foxmoth]

We may be safer now from terrorism BUT flying has got much more dangerous due to the locked door policy now in force, apart from the lowering of CRM quality, there is alsothe question of what happens in an emergency if one pilot is incapacitated and the second can't get to the door to unlock it - especially if it was say a pilot collapsing over the controls, second pilot then has to fly the aircraft (AP may get knocked out), get the collapsed pilot off the controls AND try to unlock the door!

[BOING]

I have been hoping that many of the more way out security procedures that have been implemented since 9/11 were the result of a somewhat understandable over-reaction and that sanity would finally prevail. There is no sign of this happening. The people making the rules seem to be totally incapapable of thinking through the implications of the rules they impose.

For example, the US is insisting on reinforced doors on all aircraft entering US airspace. Obviously these doors can be unlocked only on the inside. Thus, when one pilot uses the blue-room etc. the other pilot is now in sole control of the aircraft and the first pilot is securely locked out.

Can anyone spell EgyptAir?

[Bhing]

I aggree with all of the above, the simple answer is NO.

However, please lets not lump everyone into the same barrel with the yanks. Most other places seem to be far more sensible and more efficient about this subject. The yanks are a bit slow, they will eventually wake up to themselves (in more ways than one) and get a sensible system in place.

[Brakes...beer]

Considering the locked flight deck door alone, I would say that there has a been a slight increase in safety (at much cost to plain old enjoyment of flying and chatting to cabin crew and pax).

I reckon attempted hijackings are more likely than severe pilot incapacitation, ie, having a fit/slumped over controls. Now that properly reinforced flight deck doors are being introduced, along with CCTV and remotely controlled locks, it is much harder for a terrorist to gain access and easier for the fit pilot to open the door without getting out of his seat.

As for EgyptAir etc, you're never going to eliminate that, tweezers in the flight deck or not.

[Rollingthunder]

From AP

London — An 18-year-old man of Arab extraction breached the security cordon at London's Stansted airport and got into the cockpit of a Boeing 737 before security officials apprehended him, Essex police said Tuesday.

A spokesman said there was no indication that Josef Monti, who lives in Paris, had any terrorist links.

"That has been investigated, and there are none whatsoever," said the spokesman.

He said Mr. Monti, who broke into the 100-seat European Aviation jet on Wednesday, urinated in the cockpit, but apparently did so out of need rather than a desire to cause damage. He said Mr. Monti had given police no credible reasons for his presence on the plane. "We think he just wanted to go home," said the spokesman.

Mr. Monti pleaded guilty at Chelmsford Crown Court on Friday to one count of criminal damage and two charges under the Aviation Security Act. He was being held in police custody while psychiatrists assess him.

News reports said that after arriving in Britain aboard a Eurostar train from France, Mr. Monti had asked for directions to the Finsbury Park mosque in north London, which is widely regarded as a centre of radical Islam in Britain. Police were unable to confirm this.

The spokesman denied reports that Mr. Monti had caused damage to the plane's instruments.