Is air travel safer post 11 Sept 01?

[moggie]

Your thoughts please as we approach the first anniversary:

Following all the new rules (locked doors, sharp objects confiscated) please tell me if you think aircrews and travellers are better protected post 11 Sept 01.

Feel free to leave comments on why - thanks.

[Spearing Britney]

I think the poll question - are we better protected from hijack - and the thread question - are we safer - are actually two different albeit interlinked questions.

Better protected form hijack, well possibly, probably even if you only look at past methods and how they are defended. Probably not if you believe the new threat is from 'plants' either working as crew or pilots. :confused:Marginally less likely to be hijacked I suppose...

Safer to travel by air? Absolutely not, flightdeck/cabin inter-relations have been set back twenty years and once current crews (who remember past times) have gone that door being bolted/welded/screwed and nailed shut will do the same to many coffins. CRM is now a nice concept that we used to be able to employ but is now stuck locked behind so much steel. Hate to say it but sooner or later something akin to Kegworth two will happen and that door that has built a wall between people supposed to working together will have to take its share of the blame.
:(

[Kilted]

Well said SB.

To answer the initial question - absolutely not. The overuse of the spinal reflex in all matters related to avation / security over the past 12 months has been not just laughable, but totally absurd and a waste of time, money and effort at the expense of vast amounts of money, whole airlines and public confidence.

Few, if any, of the measures taken have been shown to have increased safety in any way, and may even have compromised it in some cases (e.g. banning pilots from carrying their "leathermans").

However "joe public" is now so used to being wrapped up in cotton wool and told what to think that he just accepts it as usual and carries on in blissful ignorance.

What a shambolic farce.:confused:

[747FOCAL]

Weapons still fly at airports
News boards 14 jets with contraband despite security push

New York Daily News 09/04/02
author: Maki Becker
author: Greg Gittrich

Carry-on bags concealing potentially deadly weapons. Six major airlines. Eleven airports. Fourteen flights. And not once did anyone catch on.


To test the supposedly more stringent security imposed at the nation's airports after the Sept. 11 attacks, Daily News reporters boarded flights over the Labor Day weekend carrying contraband - including box cutters, razor knives and pepper spray.


Not a single airport security checkpoint spotted or confiscated any of the dangerous items, all of which have been banned from airports and planes by federal authorities.


The four airports where the Sept. 11 terrorists boarded planes - Newark International, Boston's Logan Airport, Washington's Dulles International and Portland International Jetport in Maine - were all breached during The News' undercover investigation.


Kennedy and LaGuardia airports also failed, as did major international hubs in Los Angeles, Chicago and Las Vegas.


Smaller commuter depots weren't immune either, with Fort Lauderdale and Santa Barbara, Calif., flunking.


"That is really disturbing. It's actually beyond disturbing," said Harvey Kushner, an expert in terrorism and airport security and chairman of the department of criminal justice at Long Island University.


"It scares the hell out of me," said Kushner, who runs the security company Safer America and was waiting for a flight yesterday at Kennedy. "But it is not surprising. It underlines the massive problem that we have at our airports."


Same old slipups


The News' findings were almost identical to the results of a probe the paper conducted less than a month after the terrorist attacks, during which reporters got past checkpoints with dangerous items at 10 airports.


This time, The News found that the airports had implemented a range of security procedures since the attacks last year.


Guards consistently checked photo identification, sent luggage through souped-up X-ray machines, examined carry-on bags, wanded passengers with hand-held metal detectors and made many remove their shoes.


But it amounted to nothing more than a big show.


The new measures failed to spot the contraband items in The News' bags because of technological and human errors. Some of the most glaring:


A security agent at Newark insisted on passing our bag through an X-ray machine twice after spotting a tape recorder, cell phone, two-way pager and radio inside. She remarked: "You're pretty loaded up." It was 5 a.m. Few others were on line. But she never opened our bag - and had no idea she missed a rubber-handled razor knife and box cutter. At Portland, two guards painstakingly picked through a reporter's laptop computer case and purse as other passengers filed onto a jet scheduled to depart for Boston at 1:50 p.m.


When one of the guards came across a matchbook in one of the bags, he said we had to carry it in a jacket pocket.


Neither of them found our rubber-handled razor knife.


At Santa Barbara, a ticketing agent escorted us to a security checkpoint around 4:40 a.m. We had been randomly selected to have our check-in and carry-on luggage searched. On the way, the agent joked: "You haven't taken any flying lessons recently, have you?"


The utility knife in our carry-on would not be discovered - despite X-ray and hand searches.


None of the instruments The News carried are illegal to possess outside airports.


However, most of the items are similar to those used by the Sept. 11 terrorists - and the Transportation Security Administration has banned them from secure areas of the airports and flights.


'Lot of work to do'


Federal officials - when told of The News findings - said they had inherited a broken system that they're busy fixing.


"We have a lot of work to do," said Leonardo Alcivar, a spokesman for Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, who oversees the agency.


He insisted security has improved, pointing out that on any given day, the aviation system securely processes 5 million passengers.


The nation's airports are working to meet a Nov. 19 deadline for federally training security screeners.


The airports tested by The News relied on a combination of federal screeners, private companies and local and state police. In Los Angeles, a bicycle cop was peddling through the terminal.


On eight of the trips, News reporters were flagged as security risks - apparently because we had bought one-way tickets days before departing.


The designation typically meant the luggage we checked in was X-rayed or hand-searched and our carry-on bags were examined by hand at the gate.


But none of the agents who searched the luggage found the dangerous items.


Slapdash searches


During these random bag checks, agents typically peeked inside the bags, not bothering to unzip every pocket or remove all the items.


"All righty, you can get on the plane," a guard in Chicago told us after he finished a search that lasted little more than a minute. He missed a box cutter and a rubber-handled razor knife.


The airports and airlines tested by The News did not return calls or referred questions to federal authorities.


United Airlines also delivered a warning through spokeswoman Chris Nardella: "That is a violation of federal law that you guys knowingly took those items on an airline. You can be arrested."


George Naccara, federal security director at Logan International Airport, where The News slipped by checkpoints with a rubber-handled razor knife and corkscrew, said: "What you told me is troubling. Absolutely."


Naccara said razors are generally "very difficult to detect." But he added none of the items carried by The News would be considered "deadly or dangerous."


He said the two areas at Logan breached by The News are still staffed by nonfederal employees.


The security at Boston, Washington and Portland appeared to be more diligent than at the other airports, although they did no better in spotting the contraband.


Trying harder


At those three airports, guards X-rayed and unpacked most of our bags. But they still overlooked rubber-handled razor knives, a box cutter and a corkscrew.


Also, the random bag checks did not appear all that random on many of the flights. Before boarding, guards at several airports chose to search at least one passenger who appeared to be of Middle Eastern or South Asian descent.


The News also discovered that security employees appeared less diligent when searching our carry-on bags if we were cooperative and friendly - or demonstrated a familiarity with their routine.


At Los Angeles, a guard stopped his search a few moments after we pulled a two-way pager from our carry-on and showed him that it actually worked.


"You're used to this," the guard said. He wanded us with a hand-held metal detector and then added: "Have a good flight." Weapons still fly at airports

[moggie]

SB and Kilted - I'm afraid to have to say I agree with you both. I have in the past been in a position where the free access by Cabin Crew to the flight deck has yielded vital, flight safety related, information to me up front.

Many accidents have been caused/facilitated by a mental "door" - now we are adding a physical barrier for little or no perceptible benefit.

How can we teach MCC/CRM when we excluded 80% of the crew?

[MarkD]

In the computer industry, the form goes like this:

security companies find a hole in Windows, OS X or whatever. The reputable ones contact the company, who may work with the reporting company to patch the bug. They then make a joint press release announcing the bug and the fix, sharing the credit.

You do have the odd company who blurt it out to get publicity, and Microsoft has a patchy history of responding to advisories of security holes with alacrity, but the system generally works.

One wonders whether the journos gave the airports more than five minutes notice of the story they were running :mad:

[Lee-a-Roady Moor]

As reported today.

Quote
__________________________


"......two men who sprayed anti-war slogans on a US military aircraft in Shannon Airport early this morning.

Aer Rianta is still carrying out an investigation into how security was breached at Shannon.

Garda' are still trying to establish how the men managed to gain access to the airport. It is believed they may have scaled the perimeter fence."

_____________________________


Never mind the motives, the fact that it was possible to breach security at Shannon Airport, a stopover point for most US bound flights to/from Dublin is surely very worrying. Whilst they may have been painting slogans, the fact is that they had access to aircraft. The potential for interfering with the aircraft and the possible outcome of such unlawful interference is unthinkable. It potentially could have been a lot more than just slogans.


http://www.rte.ie/news/2002/0904/Shannon.html

[Kalium Chloride]

:rolleyes:

[PaperTiger]

The standard 6ft chainlink fencing which surrounds most of the world's airports is no impediment to determined penetration. Particularly in the dead of night at a 'rural' location like SNN.

Regular patrols help somewhat, but without stationing guards every 50 yards or installing motion sensors or other (expensive) surveillance gear there's no way the typical perimeter can be secured.

Nothing unique to Shannon about this situation.

[pullusapint]

No excuse. Military airfields generally have a good enough fence to keep out the casual intruder. These days CCTV with night vision is a relatively cheap way to alert the guard.

[Smokie]

Pullusapint, couldn't agree more.

[Smokie]

And all that with out even mentioning our friends from the sub-continent, who are in good ole "Blighty," allowed to carry their "Kirpans" to protect themselves and their religion.

Does this same ludicrous ruling exist in the USofA aswell ?

[Lee-a-Roady Moor]

So nothing unique to Shannon about this..........?

Dosen't say a lot about security in general. If it's that easy to breach airside security (without the obvious 'inside cooperation', then we should all be very concerned indeed - especially approaching 9/11 and the recent events concerning thr Ryanair flight and the more recent CityJet flight.

[PaperTiger]

nothing unique to Shannon about this..........?
Absolutely not. Keeping the discussion to civil airports, and without going into any more detail than necessary, very few have truly secure perimeters. Yes, the fences will keep out 'casual' intruders, but I doubt these greenies at SNN decided to tag the Herc on a spontaneous whim. A little bit of forethought and effort will get you onto the property at an alarming number of airports.

Have a look at your local next time, imagining it's o-dark-thirty. Think anyone would spot you ?

An intruder risks being caught but is not certain to be.

[chiglet]

pullus
{Granted] a few years ago, I was at RAF Binbrook. Front line, Lightning F6s etc....."Security", a 4 [FOUR foot [1.2M, Ithink] three rail wooden fence.
Present day, Where-ever International Airport.....xxxmiles of "chain link fence". YES there are patrols....but have to agree with Paper Tiger. [sorry, but I CANNOT use your initals]:rolleyes:
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[Ignition Override]

But in the cabin, the passengers will never again sit there passively for more than half a minute when the next attempt by a psycho is made to attack a cockpit door. Somebody will get killed again during an alcohol/prescription medication-fueled psychotic outburst, as happened a couple of years ago.

The nuts are still out there, but due to the public awareness of how passengers in several instances (on 9/11, heroically, at least over Pennsylvania) did, and can make a difference, we might be a bit safer.

Don't forgot that many people here in the US who might be afraid to fly, or can't/won't spend the money, have possibly been killed on the highways. Has anyone researched this topic? We lose about 45,000 people per year on streets and highways.

[Jet II]

I think that travel, in general, is possibly safer due to the increased awareness of the need for security at US airports - Remember, before 9/11 everyone was allowed unfettered access to the a/c at US airports. Now that the US has come up to European standards, everyone must be a little bit safer. I know that there are loads of failures in security and stupid rules now (family members on jump seats etc) but at least everyones trying.

As for the locking and armoring of flt deck doors - I believe that before long we will all have cause to regret this action.

:)

[Boss Raptor]

I feel we are safer but through indirect rather than direct reasons;

That passenger are more aware of the potential situation(s) and would be more willing to act to prevent/terminate such a situation...

That security as a whole at the airports and airlines of certain countries (US domestic services included) have been upgraded to a more acceptable level already attained by many ICAO states...

That the perception that all terrorists exist/originate outside the US has at last been quashed...

[Bust]

This is not an attack on anyone, but on the systems.

Having flown to to the US last year on days after the attacks via Schipol & Minneapolis (Sorry if I've spelt that wrong) from the Uk outbound, and Orlando, Detriot, Schipol on the return, I think the security in many of these airports caused me concern.

At my local airport I was searched once, and my bags/myself were screened twice. This did cause longer waiting times, but I'd rather be a liittle late than anything else.

Schipol - we had 30 minutes between the connecting flights, but were advised that we would not make the connection as our baggage would be screened again before being loaded onto any connecting aircraft.

On my arrival in the US, I became more aware of what was going on around me, and the then lack of security/checks. This made me feel very uneasy. I feel that the whole system in both the US/Europe needs looking at, and that practices should be carried out in the same manner all over the World.

This was my first trip to Orlando, and not a one that ended on the best of notes, with the airline I worked for going into bust.

I don't agree with the blocking off of flight-deck doors, as many of you said, it can/will cause safety problems.

Bust

[Rollingthunder]

Well, I'm not happy about what's been done in a year. There's been a lot of political hot air spewing, millions of dollars thrown at the problem, screeners in the US made Federal employees, and security taxes. Here we pay the highest security tax in the world.

A bunch of reporters, last week went through various airports, including some in the UK, including the two airports the 9/11 slimeballs left from with box cutters, rubber handled razor blade contraptions, a replica handgun and six inch scissors and got through screening everytime. A couple of reporters from the New York Times had thin sheets of lead installed in their carry-ons (blocking the x-rays, resulting in an opaque image on the screens) and got through 70% of the time.

Frankly security screening in the US and UK at least, seems to be a sham, a dangerous, political BS type, incompetent, brainless, dollars/pounds for nothing scam.

The only reason I feel any safer at all is the realization that I will take out any perpetrator(s) I run into without a qualm and hope other pax are similarly minded.

BTW, I fly tomorrow and on September the 11th.

[GwynM]

In general, I feel as safe as I did before. There are always extreme events in life, such as eartquakes, 9/11, being hit by a meteorite, IRA in Warrington, Herald of Free Enterprise etc. They are not predictable, they are rare, and you can't do anything about them. Flying is a lot safer than driving to the airport (especially on the M25), so I haven't changed my perception of risk at all since 11/9 (and why do Americans put the date the wrong way roung?)

GwynM

[Smokie]

Combined threads here me thinks , very disjointed posts !

Been a long day . including a visit to BCH !

[BOING]

As most people have noticed an airport is a pretty big thing. Guarding every foot of the perimeter is virtually impossible, even if you have a military budget. Many ways are usable to scale the perimeter fence. Therefore the security perimeter must be reduced to manageable proportions. That is why you see individual guards around the aircraft of a certain, Ahem!! Middle Eastern country. Unfortunately, protecting the terminal area only is not enough, remember the robbers who raided an aircraft that was taxying out?

[jet_noseover]

Britain's airport security has come under fire again after journalists smuggled a meat cleaver and a four-inch dagger onto a plane, just days after another undercover reporter took a replica gun through security undetected.

http://www.itv.com/news/Britain1956273.html

Another proof of journos stupidity. Can't find a decent story to write about... they'll make one.

[mainfrog2]

I saw the tv report about the replica gun incident and it looked very much like a plastic kids toy so the definition of replica stretches very far for reporting purposes. Though having seen very few real guns I wouldn't probably be able to tell the difference in the cabin just after somebodies hijacked the flight with it.


I think it is sensationalist journalism but I think having seen what these people got through security it probably highlights more what a difficult job it must be trying to spot this stuff in bags.

A lot of these can only be discovered by manual searches of everybodies hand luggage. That's the only way to be sure.

So back to post Sept 11th working I think with no handluggage except medication and essential stuff you need during the flight i.e. a book or nappies (mind you you could probably hijack an aircraft with a used nappy.)

Also these journalists only do these tricks on domestic flights, is that cos the authorities are a bit gentler on them here. I think they should take potential weapons on board flights to states with not such a tolerant reputation in the justice department.

Or is it because they can catch the train back home.

[Kalium Chloride]

Neil Wallis, editor of The People, claims that the paper's investigators "could have hijacked that plane".

Sure Mr Wallis. And what would your investigators have done about the hoard of 200 passengers intent on tearing them limb from limb?

Mr Wallis, in my opinion you're a naive idiot. Leave aviation journalism to professionals and go find a lottery winner to write about :rolleyes: :mad:

[kriskross]

So why aren't they prosecuted, after all the have admitted to the crime, and have given the evidence themselves???

[A300Man]

Bravo and I second that, Kalium Chloride!!!!!

Leave Aviation Journalism to those who know what they are talking about - gutter press at its best again!!

[Smokie]

Arrived at LGW yesterday afternoon on to stand, normal team to meet Aircraft with the exception of the Aircraft cleaners.
Nothing strange or startling there as they are occasionally late for what ever reasons.
This time however, we are informed by the caterers that the majority of them had just been sacked and were awaiting deportation back to their countries of origin. It appears that about 80% of the Aircraft cleaners were illegal immigrants!

So much for security vetting of all Airport workers then. Any one of them could have been of a persuasion that lent its self to planting any range of devices or weapons on board.

So a year on from that fateful day and this has been alowed to happen, at least they have been caught.
The burning question is :- What about all the other Airports, what about the ones who haven't been caught ? How many were from the sub continant and allowed on board with their "symbolic weapons of their religion" ? How long is it going to be before the authoities wise up or do we wait for another 9/11 ?
I'm sorry but its inexcusable !
:mad:

[Twistedfirefighter]

First we've got to sack those that allowed them to be employed!
Next we've got to re-organize that whole recruiting department.
Next we've got to train security not to admit people with meat cleavers.
Next we've got to realise that we are more vulnerable than ever- before, from the nutcases who are dangerously religious to the extent that they are!
Next we've got to tell them, there is no god, just fresh air, nature, good food and wine, LIFE!

[Dr.Evil 2002]

And I quote....... "15 cleaners were arrested....... 9 deported....... 2 charged with possesing stolen passports and 4 released without charge."

This was at LHR.

Now, these people have Airside passes, which are only issued after background and security checks right? Obviously not.

This is a farce, Its just bloody ridiculous.

I know of crew who have to go through the control posts at LHR before getting near an Aircraft, having keyrings, Leathermans and such items confiscated by security staff. Complete double standards.

Its an absolute mockery.:mad: :mad: :mad:

[BOING]

Many people seem to be relying on passengers to save the aircraft in event of a hijack but do not forget that the aisle of an aircraft is a natural defensive position. If you think in terms of multiple hijackers who have got to the cockpit door my guess is that two trained individuals could hold back a whole plane-load of passengers never mind just the fit, active ones. In the US we use galley carts positioned across the aisle whilst opening the cockpit door as a secondary barrier. Do you think hijackers will not reverse this tactic on us? Four hijackers, two to penetrate the cockpit and two to hold off the pax from behind the galley cart and the ensuing pile of bodies are all that are needed.

In a 757 aisle only two pax could actually get to grips with hijackers in the forward aisle at any one time otherwise everybody will be getting in each others way. With the best will in the world two averagely fit, untrained passengers are not going to be able to defeat two fit, trained, suicidal hijackers.

Flt 93 was an exeption. In that case the hijackers were unprepared for the passenger assault, next time they will be ready.

[Hand Solo]

Well theres 150+ pax on a 757 and only two hijackers guarding the door, I reckon the hijackers will tire first, especially as the pax now know they're all gonna die anyway if they don't succeed. Unless they've found a way of stacking galley carts on top of each other then they're still vulnerable from the waste up. Meanwhile whilst the other two are trying to get into the flight deck will you be sitting idly by flying straight and level? I'll be exploring the G limitation function of the Airbus. +2.5G to -1.0G should buy some time. With a bit of luck they may even be crushed beneath their own galley carts.

[BOING]

Was "waste up" a Freudian slip?

[Devils Advocate]

BOING is right, imho.

E.g.( and I'll say it once again ) A hostie opens the FltDck door to bring in your tea/coffee/food etc ( count how often it happens in flight ), the terrorists ( how about say 4, or 5, or 6, or 7, or 8 of them ? ) make their move and they'll be in the FltDck quicker than you can say 'I surrender'.

Nb. It's pretty easy to 'dispatch' somebody if you're trained in unarmed combat ( and they will be ), and / or you have improvised weapons, e.g. in the last week, despite the supposed and much hyped increase in pre-flight pax checks / screening etc, that even ****-for-brains journalists can still smuggle REAL weapons on-board - so just imagine what a resourceful terrorist can achieve.

So, whilst JohnnyT's cohorts guard the area around the FltDck gangway, the pilots will be 'dispatched' too ( e.g. Johnny's got the axe ), and once the pilots have been dragged out of their seats ( probably the most difficult part of the whole operation ) JohnnyT and a colleague simply close the FltDck door and lock it from within !

The remaining terrorists guard the door for as long as possible ( they'll probably be wielding the crash axe by then ), and of course whether they die at the hands of the pax matters not, they're prepared to die anyway.

Of course JohnnyT and his colleague, securely cocooned behind the ever so expensive heavily armoured practically indestructible FltDck door, can now simply do whatever they wish with the aircraft - safe in the knowledge that nobody will be able to break the door down to stop them.

In summary:

(Just as before) Weapons can still be got onboard and / or improvised.
(Just as before) Terrorists and the mentally ill can still come and fly with us.
(Just as before) The flight deck door is still opened at various points in the flight.
(New) Armoured doors fitted - but these will actually prove fatal should terrorists gain FltDck access (see above).
(New) We are more likely to have the other pax get 'stuck-in' - but how effective this will be ? (see above)

So who still thinks that they're safer ?

Well certainly not me !

[Dirty Mach]

Up until September 11th last year it was accepted knowledge that pilots in a Hijack situation should offer the hijackers compliance. As a pilot I have never been made aware of any change in this advice (although I don't think I would follow it anymore) If anyone else has seen a Notac or FAA or CAA communication stating otherwise I would love to know. Until the regulatory bodies can come up with some sensible advice (and not just ban my immediate family from the Jumpseat) I will not feel protected from anyone - except maybe the 60 year old woman down the back that has just had her nailfile confiscated.

[Wino]

Dirty Mach

"Common strategy" that you refer to of cooperating is officially dead in the USA. "Common stategy 2" is now in place officially by edict. It starts with "defend the cockpit at all costs" I won't go any further than that because it is considered sensitive material. If you are not an airline pilot you are unlikely to receive the material.

Cheers
Wino

[Devils Advocate]

But wino - I am an airline pilot and my QRH / QRC ( call it what you will ) still 'basically' states that we should comply with a terrorists demands - but quite obviously the twats in the UK DETR & the CAA find it too easy to dictate that the numskulls in security can confiscate old ladies tweezers but, on the flip-side, seemingly find enormous difficulty sanctioning against certain religious sects from coming airside with bloody great daggers ( albeit that I'm banned, as a WASP, from carrying my trusty Leatherman )…… and god forbid that they might sanction the pax and or the crew fighting back as something that's written into our QRH.

Q). Err, how many S's are there in spineless ?

Actually the bit that p!sses me off the most is that these government d!ckheads get paid their wages from the taxes of good honest hard working revenue generating folk like me and thee !

[Mowgli]

Do I feel safer? No:

1. Very good point raised earlier that once the hijacker is the wrong side of the new impregnable door, he can operate without intervention.

2. The current posturing and preparation for war against Iraq whilst not sorting out the Palestinian problem will anger more Islamic fundamentalists.

3. The new rules about who can travel on the jumpseat (i.e not my mother) do nothing to make me feel safer but rather make me feel very unsure about the sytem which imposes such rules.

4. I believe the biggest risk while flying is from a Kegworth type of accident, where a lack of communication and teamwork prevents the crew from feeling empowered to mention that they think the flt deck might have got the situation wrong.

It's all about making the travelling public think something effective has been introduced. The truth is, a lot of headless chickens have made some rules that make our jobs more difficult and which have ignored the hard earned lessons of the past which introduced CRM to aviation.

[boofhead]

Wino I looked in the ACs and could not find any reference to a change in policy. Could you point me to it? And yes, I have a US ATP but did not get any notification of a change.

All that is going on re security in the US is a complete waste of time. Checking little kids, women and old people, and of course checking all staff who travel on subload tickets is a farce. Of course they cant find all the guns and weapons carried, they never could and never will, and I know many ways to defeat the security. I also know many ways to use every-day items that are completely legal, I am sure the terrorists are even more aware. If the passengers were allowed to carry guns on board, it would be safer than it is now; in the same way that a burglar thinks twice before going into a home he suspects might contain an armed owner, he would know that if he stuck his head up and declared he was hijacking the airplane, it would get blown off.

Of course I am not advocating no security, and the only guns on board should be in the hands of those certified to carry them, such as police officers and those with concealed carry permits. And, of course, the pilots and cabin crew who are qualified.

It is not guns, knives or nail files that hijack airplanes, it is people. That is what we should be concentrating on, which means look for the persons who are a threat, learn what they look like and how they act, and stop them before they board. If they do get on (and they will, despite our best efforts) train the crew to handle it, with the use of available items on board. There is training available in this area, but until the policy is changed (and disseminated to the airlines) security is the air is worse, not better, than it was.

The only real change that has taken place in the US is that the security farce is driving passengers away in droves, and causing the bankruptcy of the airlines. Good news for the corporate operators, of course, and the bus companies and rail lines...