Bomb on board ?
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Inacave
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Names withheld to prevent controversy
I worry more about the ubiquitous lithium batteries allowed on the plane than about Grandma's fingernail file or Uncle Joe's penknife. Many have already shown here that there are ways around the security system that nobody is doing anything about.
As I've always said, if you want the best safety then look at whoever has the best safety record and follow their lead. One smallish country has always had to deal with this, being in the midst of many who hate them. They've provably done better with this than all the rest.If you want to fly with them, you plan on answering questions and on spending lots of time being checked over and into thoroughly by humans trained to look for problem people, not hidden hatpins. Inconvenient? Maybe, but all the folks living there know that it's far more inconvenient to be a victim of a preventable act. You want the best flight safety? Ditch the theatrics and do what's truly effective. The time will come when bad things happen in the air again- I can see many ways to do it that will get past all the current screening and safety procedures. What then- add another item or category to the prohibited list and tell me (yet again) that it's safe to fly now that you're doing all this? I don't and won't believe it, not this time and not the next either. Not until you do it as well as XX-XX does.
As I've always said, if you want the best safety then look at whoever has the best safety record and follow their lead. One smallish country has always had to deal with this, being in the midst of many who hate them. They've provably done better with this than all the rest.If you want to fly with them, you plan on answering questions and on spending lots of time being checked over and into thoroughly by humans trained to look for problem people, not hidden hatpins. Inconvenient? Maybe, but all the folks living there know that it's far more inconvenient to be a victim of a preventable act. You want the best flight safety? Ditch the theatrics and do what's truly effective. The time will come when bad things happen in the air again- I can see many ways to do it that will get past all the current screening and safety procedures. What then- add another item or category to the prohibited list and tell me (yet again) that it's safe to fly now that you're doing all this? I don't and won't believe it, not this time and not the next either. Not until you do it as well as XX-XX does.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SawMan
Yes, a small country with two small airports. What they do there can't be duplicated everywhere else. Perhaps in a small country like Switzerland with four or so small airports but it would never work in larger markets.
A question. Has all of this security theatre actually reduced terrorism? Or has it just diverted it elsewhere?
Yes, a small country with two small airports. What they do there can't be duplicated everywhere else. Perhaps in a small country like Switzerland with four or so small airports but it would never work in larger markets.
A question. Has all of this security theatre actually reduced terrorism? Or has it just diverted it elsewhere?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason I'm cynical about security theatre is that I first made a presentation about gaping gaps in the security system set up to protect commercial air transport post 9/11 in 2004. I highlighted 2 cases, emphasising that they were examples only; one was abject failure to ensure that cargo was subjected to the same level of scrutiny as passengers, crew and baggage, and the other was the pointless, ineffectual pantomime that fails to ensure that an aircraft being returned to service from a non-secure environment, for example after heavy maintenance in an area outside the security zone, cannot have any concealed devices anywhere using timers or barometric triggers.
On that occasion, and many since, I have been advised that closing those gaps would shut the industry down, so for God's sake shut up about it.
I know that closing all the gaps is probably impossible if we are to continue carrying passengers, cargo and mail commercially; and I'm not advocating that we should try and do that.
But let's stop pretending that the security theatre in the departure channel is any more than a meaningless pretence that people will be safer on board their aircraft because an semi-literate moron has confiscated their sandwiches.
On that occasion, and many since, I have been advised that closing those gaps would shut the industry down, so for God's sake shut up about it.
I know that closing all the gaps is probably impossible if we are to continue carrying passengers, cargo and mail commercially; and I'm not advocating that we should try and do that.
But let's stop pretending that the security theatre in the departure channel is any more than a meaningless pretence that people will be safer on board their aircraft because an semi-literate moron has confiscated their sandwiches.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Isle Dordt
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A question. Has all of this security theatre actually reduced terrorism? Or has it just diverted it elsewhere?
A manager opened it and still has 10 fingers and two eyes
an airport security manager actually opened the pipe bomb and dumped the contents, apparently oblivious to the potential for triggering a deadly explosion.
The documents also show that a manual swab and an explosives-detection test failed to detect the pipe bomb. Worse, a trainer for the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA) did not recognize it was an explosive device and left it in her office over the weekend.
The documents also show that a manual swab and an explosives-detection test failed to detect the pipe bomb. Worse, a trainer for the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA) did not recognize it was an explosive device and left it in her office over the weekend.
There's lots of pipe bombs that go off accidentally when a bit of gunpowder gets caught in the threads. The bombmaker and manager were very lucky.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On that occasion, and many since, I have been advised that closing those gaps would shut the industry down, so for God's sake shut up about it.
Modern society still relies on trust and the expectation that we all behave in a reasonable manner - the occaisonal incidents where someone starts using a gun/knife/sword/whatever in an indiscriminate manner show how we're generally unprepared for such a happening, and yet what we'd have to do to guard against such events is unacceptable to most people.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Inacave
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ExXB- You say it would never work in larger markets, but why not? The only differences I can see is in the numbers of persons to be screened. Or are you thinking of the collective screaming of people who believe they are being 'inconvenienced' too much?
You can have top-notch security or not as you wish. What you cannot do is make having it convenient or easy for those being protected.
There will always be bad guys looking to do harm, and yes they are going to go for an easier target if you make other targets too tough. So they may just be diverting these bad guys, but if all airports did this, then the bad guys would have to divert to things other than aircraft which in a sense would mean that you won the game.
I'm not a frequent flyer, but fear of bad guys has nothing to do with that. I detest the current security system because it disables me from being able to create my own defense against the bad guys, leaving me with only the "flight 93" option of winning at the highest cost to myself and those around me, which I do not consider a win but a draw. Either give an effort your all or make no effort at all- anything in between is wasted effort and a guaranteed losing of the game. If the more secure method I speak of were done everywhere, then I would feel differently- I would not detest a true security, but bather I'd embrace it. In the meantime I understand and accept the risks. And I know that unsafe cargo, mechanical failure, or human error without malice is more likely to get me than a bad guy. That would remain the same even with most of the current so-called security procedures dropped, so why bother making the half-a$$ed effort we're making now which is adding greatly to my misery while adding little to my security?
Following the direction we're now on to it's logical end, a time will come when they will all want PAX to fully disrobe, wear the supplied bright orange jumpsuit, and be locked into your seat to make sure that nobody can do anything potentially harmful while on the plane. All your baggage will be carried on a separate non-PAX flight right behind you so that you can't access anything potentially evil in it. And the more we accept their stupid "security" ideas, the sooner you're going to see this.
Now would you rather have that, or would you rather they end the current charade of safety and let you decide whether the risk of flying conveniently and comfy is worth it?
You can have top-notch security or not as you wish. What you cannot do is make having it convenient or easy for those being protected.
There will always be bad guys looking to do harm, and yes they are going to go for an easier target if you make other targets too tough. So they may just be diverting these bad guys, but if all airports did this, then the bad guys would have to divert to things other than aircraft which in a sense would mean that you won the game.
I'm not a frequent flyer, but fear of bad guys has nothing to do with that. I detest the current security system because it disables me from being able to create my own defense against the bad guys, leaving me with only the "flight 93" option of winning at the highest cost to myself and those around me, which I do not consider a win but a draw. Either give an effort your all or make no effort at all- anything in between is wasted effort and a guaranteed losing of the game. If the more secure method I speak of were done everywhere, then I would feel differently- I would not detest a true security, but bather I'd embrace it. In the meantime I understand and accept the risks. And I know that unsafe cargo, mechanical failure, or human error without malice is more likely to get me than a bad guy. That would remain the same even with most of the current so-called security procedures dropped, so why bother making the half-a$$ed effort we're making now which is adding greatly to my misery while adding little to my security?
Following the direction we're now on to it's logical end, a time will come when they will all want PAX to fully disrobe, wear the supplied bright orange jumpsuit, and be locked into your seat to make sure that nobody can do anything potentially harmful while on the plane. All your baggage will be carried on a separate non-PAX flight right behind you so that you can't access anything potentially evil in it. And the more we accept their stupid "security" ideas, the sooner you're going to see this.
Now would you rather have that, or would you rather they end the current charade of safety and let you decide whether the risk of flying conveniently and comfy is worth it?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Isle Dordt
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RatherBeFlying, shocking report.
And Mr. Murphy showed more common sense in handling the explosive device than the CATSA agents.
- Not recognizing an explosive device on sight
- No detection of explosives in their fancy machines
- Handing the bomb back to the passenger
- Dismantling of an explosive device by an unqualified person
- Improper disposal of chemical waste
- Taking a whopping four days to actually identify a bomb as a bomb
And Mr. Murphy showed more common sense in handling the explosive device than the CATSA agents.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SawMan,
I don't believe the security screening we encounter has done anything to reduce terrorist incidents. At best they have been diverted to shopping centres, underground trains and buses.
As sheepish as the normal air travellers may be the will not, and would not, accept a minimum 2 hour (meaning a 3 hour) check-in requirement, personal interviews, questions related to reasons for travel, sexual orientation, and in-side seam measurement. They would not accept being denied boarding because someone didn't like their answers, or their accent, or their skin colour.
And still, what good what it do? When was the last terrorist incident aimed at airlines/airports.
I don't believe the security screening we encounter has done anything to reduce terrorist incidents. At best they have been diverted to shopping centres, underground trains and buses.
As sheepish as the normal air travellers may be the will not, and would not, accept a minimum 2 hour (meaning a 3 hour) check-in requirement, personal interviews, questions related to reasons for travel, sexual orientation, and in-side seam measurement. They would not accept being denied boarding because someone didn't like their answers, or their accent, or their skin colour.
And still, what good what it do? When was the last terrorist incident aimed at airlines/airports.
Last one was about a week ago in Nairobi, although details in the public domain are sketchy yet. There are generally several attempted attacks somewhere on the planet per year, thankfully most are stopped before they get to the airport.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...the introduction of metal detectors in the '80 of last century pretty effective in reducing the number of plane hijackings... Still the most (only) effective piece of nowadays security theatre
PM
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: depends what day
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"A question. Has all of this security theatre actually reduced terrorism? Or has it just diverted it elsewhere?"
The airline industry is not responsible for reducing terrorism, they try their utmost to revent terrorism in their area of responsibility, ie: the airline industry.
The airline industry is not responsible for reducing terrorism, they try their utmost to revent terrorism in their area of responsibility, ie: the airline industry.
