Unutterably Silly Airport security decisions?

[Barcey]

I've been seeing a lot of news lately about the advanced image technology (AIT) scanners being used for airport security because Nov 24th is National Opt Out day in the USA.

http://www.optoutday.com/ (NSFW .... unless you work at the airport)

So what decision are you going to make about flying?

[kindlekitten]

now that I am part titanium it is a LOT easier for me to go through these scanners than the pat down searches. if it enhances my security, so be it. I don't think the folks doing the screening have time to get their yayas off with the amount of people going through. my concern is solely health related now. I've seen some info from the pilots union talking about concerns over the amount of rads they are taking. I used to fly twice a week, that would have been a lot. this year I am down to 10 times, that is still fairly significant...

[ardeegee]

Here's an article I saw on the subject yesterday and thought of posting. It is ample evidence that the terrorists have indeed achieved their goal of defeating the US.

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/11/13...diego-air.html

(Note other articles in the "previously")

[desertgrandma]

edited........

[Seanette]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Okay.......I have a question.

What is YOUR (anyone?) answer to keeping terrorists w/bombs or weapons off planes?

Maybe we could ask nicely.

"Please, if anyone has a bomb, could you please leave it in this container before boarding."

C'mon, give a solution.

My solution is to not fly until requirements that I be subjected to public nudity and/or groping be rescinded.

Benjamin Franklin: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." IMO, not being subjected to public sexual assault is an "essential liberty". So is complying with my religion's standards for modesty.

[kennyc]

I basically don't fly, but it would be no issue for me with the scanners. I think people are too hung up on nudity anyway.

And certainly Ardeegee is right about the goal of the terrorists.

[GlenBarrington]

Deserves whatever temporary blindness that happens to them!

[DuncanWatson]

I will wait it out. The airport stupidity is finally enough to piss off people and it will be relaxed again. If I have no choice I will take the rad hit and let them have naked pictures of me. I find the entire security theatre thing stupid and it is obviously designed to placate those bad at math and risk assessment.

[EowynCarter]

That's just enough with this paranoîa.

[LCF]

Do we know what this fancy new scanner does to the health?

[Javed]

Originally Posted by LCF

Do we know what this fancy new scanner does to the health?

Will it bake potatoes?

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by LCF

Do we know what this fancy new scanner does to the health?

Originally Posted by Javed

Will it bake potatoes?

If it does, I might start flying again - decent food!

[Lo Zeno]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Okay.......I have a question.

What is YOUR (anyone?) answer to keeping terrorists w/bombs or weapons off planes?

Maybe we could ask nicely.

"Please, if anyone has a bomb, could you please leave it in this container before boarding."

C'mon, give a solution.

First of all, what I'm about to write is an idea that didn't came out originally from my mind, but I have always agreed that it would have been the best solution. Unfortunately (as you will see) it's a totally impopular idea and to put it in practice now means spending whole wagons of money to modify or substitute current airplanes (had it been implemented years ago, when airplanes were just a new transportation mean, it would have repayed itself tenfold by now).
Also, it's not perfect. Perfect solutions do not exist. But it would be a far better deterrent than the current solution.

The possible solution to airplane terrorism is: total isolation of the cabin from the passengers' seats.
By total isolation I mean: NO door connecting the cabin to the passengers' and crew's quarters, no intercom, no speakers, no NOTHING. Nada. Nix. When I started working, years ago, I learnt that history shows that no terrorist makes airplanes blow up "just because": airplanes are far better terror-inducers when they crash ONTO something (buildings, places, airports, etc) because such a crash would mean 3 to 10 times the number of victims. Much scarier than just the airplane's passengers.

Put a 3 inch steel wall between the cabin and the rest of the airplane, and allow no communication between the two compartments. Any terrorist would be unable to threaten the pilots, even if they were seriously going to kill people. Isolate/jam any radiofrequency coming from inside the passengers' compartment so that they can't communicate with the ground.
Any necessary communication from the passengers MUST pass through the control towers' communications, even if they need to tell the pilot to change route because of an emergency (passenger tells a hostess "my wife doesn't feel well", hostess calls the closest control tower, control tower then gives instruction to the pilot).
Should there be a terrorist threat, the control tower will tell NOTHING to the pilots, or at most make the pilots land in a nearby airport SAFELY so that they can surround the plane and arrest the terrorists. Also, no terrorist can point a gun to the pilot's head, nor can they take the pilot's place and pilot the plane by themselves.

Downsides: expect at least three cases in which the terrorists kill everyone (except the pilots, of course) before terrorists understand that it's useless to try and use airplanes for terrorism.

Where is it weak? As with all things, its weakness lies in the human part, the control towers' crew. Should a terrorist force a hostess to tell the control tower to communicate with the pilot and make him change course, the control tower should not do so, or at most pretend that they did, until the plane lands. The problem is that they are human too, and might give in to the terrorist's demands. Even then, since the pilots are separated from the terrorists by the wall of steel, no pilot would ever make his plane crash onto a skyscraper even if he knew of a terrorist on the other side of the wall (which would mean multiply the number of certain deaths).

[dsvick]

Originally Posted by Seanette

My solution is to not fly until requirements that I be subjected to public nudity and/or groping be rescinded.

Benjamin Franklin: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." IMO, not being subjected to public sexual assault is an "essential liberty". So is complying with my religion's standards for modesty.

That didn't answer DG's question, how will you not flying stop people from trying to get explosives onto airplanes?

I'm quite sure that the screening in an airport does not constitute a public assault. Regardless, it is your choice whether to fly or not, if you choose not to then fine - the line will be shorter for those that do.

Originally Posted by ShortNCuddlyAm

If it does, I might start flying again - decent food!

Screener: Mam, haven't you been through already.
Am: umm, well yes, but see this potato is rather larger than I'd thought it would be so I've got to go through multiple times to make sure the inside is done. I just hope it doesn't get too hot and expl ....... errrr
Screener: Mam, would you please step over here.

Originally Posted by Lo Zeno

The possible solution to airplane terrorism is: total isolation of the cabin from the passengers' seats.
By total isolation I mean: NO door connecting the cabin to the passengers' and crew's quarters, no intercom, no speakers, no NOTHING. Nada. Nix. When I started working, years ago, I learnt that history shows that no terrorist makes airplanes blow up "just because": airplanes are far better terror-inducers when they crash ONTO something (buildings, places, airports, etc) because such a crash would mean 3 to 10 times the number of victims. Much scarier than just the airplane's passengers.

Unfortunately the last few attempts have been exactly that - an attempt to simply blow up the plane in flight. I agree your solution would work great for hijackings but not for someone that simply wants to blow it up.

[Lo Zeno]

Originally Posted by dsvick

Unfortunately the last few attempts have been exactly that - an attempt to simply blow up the plane in flight. I agree your solution would work great for hijackings but not for someone that simply wants to blow it up.

What is interesting, though, is that after the 9/11 (where planes didn't blow up, but crashed onto buildings), airport security agencies and police/federal/military/secret agencies/whatyourcountryuses investigations show an increase in "attempts to blow up planes" (explosive materials found in hand luggages or hidden in shoes/clothes/other stuff, plans to "blow up planes" found in house of suspected terrorists, and so on).
This fact never smelled right to me, just because BEFORE the 9/11 there has been only a handful of such attacks made (in the whole history of flying). Bombs, fake bombs, and other "probably explosive materials" have always been used as a threatening tool to obtain something, never to JUST blow up the plane itself.
(Blowing up the plane usually is useful if you force the pilot to make the plane fly above a heavily populated city: think about the disaster)

Notice: the same thing is true for a lot of other terrorist attacks (trains, subways, cars...): the trains have been blown up close to train stations, subway wagons have been blown up at subway stations, and so on. Always choosing the most crowded place to get the highest effect (more deaths make people more scared).

It is my opinion (and I want to stress the words MY and OPINION) that all those "attempts to blow up planes" are either:
1) fake, as in fake news meant to divert attention from other matters (very unlikely, but there is at least ONE such confirmed episode here in Italy)
2) the result of journalists who "simplify" the headlines of their articles, not bothering to write things like "this guy had explosive materials meant to build a small explosive device which he intended to use to blow up the plane above New York so that the plane would crash down on the city killing hundreds of people" and thinking that "terrorist tries to blow up plane, is discovered and arrested" is a much better headline.