The Cheap Thrill-Airport Security Measures run Wild

[brewer12345]

I have dispatched letters to my elected officials, but I think the real way to make this change is to hit them where it hurts: the wallet. Airlines are HIGHLY sensitive to small changes in load factors (how much the average plane is filled with paying customers). If 10% of their customers decided to stop flying for a spell, it would be quite painful for the industry. I suspect that our bought and paid for elected officials would react quickly.

So skip one or more planned flights and write your usual airline telling them why.

 

[RonBoyd]

Worse Than Vietnam

... Just as Al Qaeda planned, it empowers the narrative of terrorist recruiters — that America is at war with Islam. The would-be Times Square bomber said he was working to avenge the killing of Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And Major Nidal Hasan, who at Fort Hood perpetrated the biggest post-9/11 terrorist attack on American soil, was enraged by the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

And how many anti-American jihadists has the war created on the battlefield itself? There’s no telling, but recent headlines suggest this admittedly impressionistic conclusion: We’re creating them faster than we’re killing them. And some of these enemies, unlike the Vietcong, could wind up killing Americans after the war is over — in South Asia, in the Middle East, in Europe, in America.

It would mean convincing Americans that — sometimes, at least — we have to absorb terrorist attacks stoically, refraining from retaliation that brings large-scale blowback.

That’s a tough sell, because few things are more deeply engrained in human nature than the impulse to punish enemies. So maybe the message should be put like this: Could we please stop doing Al Qaeda’s work for it?

 

[MichaelB]

I have dispatched letters to my elected officials, but I think the real way to make this change is to hit them where it hurts: the wallet. Airlines are HIGHLY sensitive to small changes in load factors (how much the average plane is filled with paying customers). If 10% of their customers decided to stop flying for a spell, it would be quite painful for the industry. I suspect that our bought and paid for elected officials would react quickly.

So skip one or more planned flights and write your usual airline telling them why.

Scanner roll out wasn't done in a way that would allow an analysis of passenger reaction. In cities like Chicago and NY, with multiple airports, a staggered implementation plan would have made it easier to measure changes in traffic.

The next best thing is to write the airlines. Our elected officials seem to be very sensitive to what their [-]constituents[/-] business contributors needs are.

 

[Alan]

A couple of years ago, the BBC demonstrated how to blow a hole 2 feet across in the hull of an airliner using two 3-ounce bottles of liquids (the professor doing the experiment didn't tell us what was in the bottles, for obvious reasons), and that was on the ground - no allowance for the further effects of depressurisation. I think that the aircraft would probably be lost if that happened at FL370, cf Pan Am flight 103.

Of course, that also demonstrates that the current liquid restrictions aren't much use. As others have noticed, we're always fighting the last battle. Underwear bomb? X-ray crotches. 330ml PET bottle with explosives? Limit people to 100ml.

I looked for the full article but could only find the summary video. As you can see, the bottle is not large.

BBC NEWS | UK | Detonation of liquid explosives

The full article, while not saying what chemicals were used, said they were all easily obtainable and the bomb could be put together by 3 or more bombers who each carried 3oz of liquids through security. On the 'safe' side they get together, buy a bottle of soda, empty it and assemble the bomb which one them takes on board and sets up with a simple method of detonation.

 

[Westernskies]

I have dispatched letters to my elected officials, but I think the real way to make this change is to hit them where it hurts: the wallet. Airlines are HIGHLY sensitive to small changes in load factors (how much the average plane is filled with paying customers). If 10% of their customers decided to stop flying for a spell, it would be quite painful for the industry. I suspect that our bought and paid for elected officials would react quickly.

So skip one or more planned flights and write your usual airline telling them why.

So you advocate punishing private industry in response to a government policy?

Where's the "justice" in that?

 

[travelover]

So you advocate punishing private industry in response to a government policy?

Where's the "justice" in that?

Private industry funds political campaigns. Elected officials respond to the wishes of their largest donors.

 

[MichaelB]

Gotta go to the grocers and pick up some things – I may never return. A few final thoughts on this subject for those dedicated few still reading this thread:

The threat of turning an airplane into a weapon is real, must be deterred, and security is justified. The threat of killing a plane and its passengers is not the same; both the risk and need for deterrence should be measured on a different scale and more in line with similar risks elsewhere.

Homeland security and TSA are focusing intently on airline risk and security not because it represents greater risk but because 1) the threat is easier to articulate and 2) their security response is easier to implement. IOW, they are not focused on the greatest threats, they are focused on what they have the ability to implement and manage.

HLS and TSA are now part of the status quo. Their own continuity will be at the core of every analysis and program recommendation they make from now on.

 

[Orchidflower]

They can feel me up all they want to at the airport...I'm remembering 9/11 and don't want to be turned into dust in seconds. Not fun but hey! it is what it is.

 

[BigNick]

HLS and TSA are now part of the status quo. Their own continuity will be at the core of every analysis and program recommendation they make from now on.

Yep. First instinct of every organism is survival, and a bureaucracy is an organism. And they're doing pretty well, because they manage to get people to believe that what they are doing will actually mitigate the risks addressed in the very next post:

They can feel me up all they want to at the airport...I'm remembering 9/11 and don't want to be turned into dust in seconds. Not fun but hey! it is what it is.

 

[RustyShackleford]

The full article, while not saying what chemicals were used, said they were all easily obtainable and the bomb could be put together by 3 or more bombers who each carried 3oz of liquids through security. On the 'safe' side they get together, buy a bottle of soda, empty it and assemble the bomb which one them takes on board and sets up with a simple method of detonation.

I don't think it needs to be this complicated (hint: gasoline).

 

[BigNick]

I don't think it needs to be this complicated (hint: gasoline).

I wondered that when the underpants bomber struck. 10 3-ounce bottles, each with gasoline - OK, 5 bottles, so as not to look suspicious - go to the bathroom, pour on floor or over oneself, strike match. By the time anyone can get the door open, there'll be 60kg of terrorist on fire too. Does an airliner carry enough extinguishing capacity?

 

[DallasGuy]

Ha Ha Ha...another non event created by the media. I just watched the 6PM news coverage in the Dallas area and the security checks went very smoothly and most of the people interviewed said they appreciated the security checks to make flying safe. So my conclusion is that once again a few people scream bloody murder about the security checks and in actuality the vast majority of the public are OK with things....another example of a perceived problem created by a few people with the media's help.

 

[Rustward]

Imagine that the airlines operated flights that are screened at different levels. You are able to choose a flight on which the passengers and crew (and associated service personel) were screened at different levels, say -- pre-1994, pre-9-11-2001, pre November 2010 (aka post 9-11), or post November 2010. Or pick your own level. Which would you choose?

Remember, the "other guys" get to pick, also.

 

[Ronstar]

I wondered that when the underpants bomber struck. 10 3-ounce bottles, each with gasoline - OK, 5 bottles, so as not to look suspicious - go to the bathroom, pour on floor or over oneself, strike match. By the time anyone can get the door open, there'll be 60kg of terrorist on fire too. Does an airliner carry enough extinguishing capacity?

The pilot can take the plane to a certain altitude and the fire will go out on its own

 

[RonBoyd]

The pilot can take the plane to a certain altitude and the fire will go out on its own

Pressurized Cabin or not?

 

[Nords]

Pressurized Cabin or not?

If the fuselage stays intact, that's up to the pilot. If it doesn't stay intact then the only way to control pressure is with altitude.

Entertaining topics for [-]bored[/-] inquisitive submariners: Humans breathe oxygen on a partial pressure (Say, 110-130 out of 760 torr. That might be right but I don't remember the spec anymore.) Fire burns on a percentage of oxygen in the total atmospheric pressure.

Back when submarines had smoking lamps, a favorite trick of non-smoking officers of the deck was to keep the boat's oxygen pressure as low as possible while keeping the total pressure as high as possible. People could still breathe but cigarettes wouldn't stay lit.

One OOD got a little overenthusiastic with that tactic before a surfacing. O2 partial pressure was so low (but in spec) and total pressure was so high (over 950 torr) that when the bridge hatch was opened a huge rush of air exited the boat. Both O2 partial pressure and boat pressure dropped so rapidly around the control room (at the base of the bridge trunk) that the control party briefly lost consciousness.

 

[REWahoo]

The pilot can take the plane to a certain altitude and the fire will go out on its own

I think you've been watching too many movies.

If the aircraft is still pressurized - and a fire as described shouldn't cause a depressurization - climbing to a higher altitude won't put out a fire. Plus, there is no way any aircrew is going to climb to a higher altitude with a fire on board. They are going to be running checklists, declaring an emergency and looking for the nearest suitable runway to get that aircraft on the ground...because they need a change of underwear - stat!

 

[calmloki]

I think you've been watching too many movies.

If the aircraft is still pressurized - and a fire as described shouldn't cause a depressurization - climbing to a higher altitude won't put out a fire. Plus, there is no way any aircrew is going to climb to a higher altitude with a fire on board. They are going to be running checklists, declaring an emergency and looking for the nearest suitable runway to get that aircraft on the ground...because they need a change of underwear - stat!

Ronstar just didn't mention that the passengers would go out as well....

 

[youbet]

It's facinating to think about how successful the terrorism movement is being. At the cost of a few bux and a few lives, they've succeeded in costing us Big Bux and many lives. And, more importantly, have us fighting amongst ourselves, influencing elections and political agenda, contributing to the slide of our economy and disrupting our lives. Ya gotta tip your hat to 'em. Smart cookies.

I'm sure my grandchildren (5, 8 and 9) will live in a much less pleasant world than I've enjoyed. And I'm watching it happen before my eyes.......

 

[REWahoo]

I'm sure my grandchildren (5, 8 and 9) will live in a much less pleasant world than I've enjoyed. And I'm watching it happen before my eyes.......

I'm much less pessimistic. I'm not 'sure' of anything, but I believe that much like the threat of global nuclear annihilation from the Soviet Union, this too shall pass - or at least reduce substantially.

 

[clifp]

It's facinating to think about how successful the terrorism movement is being. At the cost of a few bux and a few lives, they've succeeded in costing us Big Bux and many lives. And, more importantly, have us fighting amongst ourselves, influencing elections and political agenda, contributing to the slide of our economy and disrupting our lives. Ya gotta tip your hat to 'em. Smart cookies.

I'm sure my grandchildren (5, 8 and 9) will live in a much less pleasant world than I've enjoyed. And I'm watching it happen before my eyes.......

I agree with absurd impact the terrorism movement has had in relationship to the expenditures. However, I'm not going to give the terrorist credit for being smart, actually they have been pretty dumb. Certainly the guys who got caught recently, shoe, underwear, Time Square etc. bombers are closer to being nominees for the Darwin awards, than to Hannibal Lector in the brain department.

I don't think the terrorist won, but rather we lost.

As for your grandchild I'm cautiously optimistic it will be better for them, because I think Churchill is right.
"The Americans will always do the right thing... after they've exhausted all the alternatives. "

Let's be thankful we are running out of alternatives.

 

[youbet]

I'm much less pessimistic. I'm not 'sure' of anything, but I believe that much like the threat of global nuclear annihilation from the Soviet Union, this too shall pass - or at least reduce substantially.

I'm sure pulling for you to be right. But I admit I view the current societal attitudes, political climate and detiorating world environmental conditions as being capable of allowing those who would own us to do so over time like a slowly spreading cancer. I see it as much more of a threat than any of the cold war scenarios.

Back then, it was jumping under my desk at the elementary school during air raid practice. Today it's intrusive security checks at the airport. Jumping under my desk was easy and cheap. And there was a sense of community cohesiveness vs. a common threat.

Sigh..........

I had a great Thanksgiving day with my family. Great food, great discussion, and a terrific bottle of expensive port shared by the guys in front of the TV watching football. Even the sound of grandkids running around laughing and playing was good.

Happy Thanksgiving!

 

[dex]

I'm much less pessimistic. I'm not 'sure' of anything, but I believe that much like the threat of global nuclear annihilation from the Soviet Union, this too shall pass - or at least reduce substantially.

The "threat of global nuclear annihilation from the Soviet Union" may have gone away but the the government resources that defended against it and prepared to defend against it has not. Sure there has been some reduction but much of it is still there.

What government agency every went away? The tax on telephones that was implemented to pay for the Spanish American War it went away a couple of years ago. So how long will it take for the TSA to go away after it is no longer needed?

 

[youbet]

I'm not going to give the terrorist credit for being smart, actually they have been pretty dumb. Certainly the guys who got caught recently, shoe, underwear, Time Square etc. bombers are closer to being nominees for the Darwin awards, than to Hannibal Lector in the brain department.

You're looking at the wrong people. Think of those who on the slimest of budgets recruited and directed those expendable "dummies." Each instance cost us Big Bux, diverted us from other activities, added to the separation between our warring factions and scrared us into actions we'd rather not take. And all it cost them was pocket change and a few cretins.......

Sometimes it seems like we're puppets on their string.

 

[Ronstar]

I think you've been watching too many movies.

If the aircraft is still pressurized - and a fire as described shouldn't cause a depressurization - climbing to a higher altitude won't put out a fire. Plus, there is no way any aircrew is going to climb to a higher altitude with a fire on board. They are going to be running checklists, declaring an emergency and looking for the nearest suitable runway to get that aircraft on the ground...because they need a change of underwear - stat!

I heard it from a pilot, and I thought it seemed a little tough to pull off, but I didn't question him further on it. But I'll see him Saturday and I'll ask for details.