humorous look at security
 

http://www.silentplanet.com/faa/index2.html

Which leads to 2 questions:

1. which airline will be the first to issue Frequently-searched miles?

2. Can you ge a big red "S" on an electronic ticket, and if not is this an advantage over paper tickets?

1. The airlines would never do such a thing, they're too busy distancing themselves from security, pretending that they have no ability to influence security policy.

2. CAPPS automatically selects people for the security screening, it doesn't matter what kind of ticket you have.

What a fiasco this guy had. Although I'm glad that they followed good security policy (like rescreening people and sweeping the plane before they were allowed to board again), it must have been a pain at the time. I also liked how the security people wanted them to take a bite into each piece of marzipan candy they were planning to give as a gift.

I couldn't tell whether he was joking or thought it was stupid that they confiscated the knife from the other guy at the gate. He also pulled the typical "we don't look like terrorists, why should they search us." That is the stupidest possible defense, unless I've missed something and ALL terrorists have the word terrorist tattooed on their faces.

d

I can't see what was so good about having the plane turn back from "almost spitting distance" from its destination. If that lady really had had any explosives in her suitcase, what was the benefit of the turn-around?

Perhaps to remove them?

In case of a possible emergency, you're supposed to go to the closest airport. When you realize there is a breech in security, you should rectify it, not just ignore it.

The "good security policy" I was mentioning was primarily the fact that they rescreened everyone who was supposed to be screened and swept the cabin for weapons when it was determined that the author had gotten on without being searched. Poor security policy would have simply taken him off and rescreened him, which would have given him an opportunity to stowe weapons on the plane.

d

I'm not following your logic here. The suitcase would represent a much greater danger the longer it is in the air. If it had a pressure trigger, it would blow up at landing independently of where it lands. If it had a timer, the risk for an explosion just increases the longer it's in the plane.

And as far as to be able to stowe weapons on the plane: He did go through security, didn't he? Or do you imply that the security screening is so bad, that a hand search is needed to make sure no weapons are brought on-board? If that's the case, why do we even bother having the security check??

This whole incident seems to be just another knee-jerk reaction to security. I read in another thread that when Guiliani [sp?] got fed up with numerous evacuations of Grand Central Terminal because of bomb threats, he just decided we aren't going to do this anymore (evacuate) and, what do you know, the bomb threats stopped - it wasn't fun anymore. We need a little more of that attitude; evaluate each incident on its own merits, and stop the rediculous evacuations every time something happens.

The random inspection at the gate is supposed to target people randomly and people like the guy in the article who were identified by CAPPS as being a risk. Doing it at the gate makes the most sense because people could get their hands on something in the sterile terminal, perhaps brought in by a co-conspirator, and bring it on board. And people who the computer identifies as possibly being a risk are probably more likely to do this.

Besides that, it's easier to screen CAPPS selected pax in more detail at the gate because there's more space available, versus the crowded and busy security checkpoint.

d

Aside from the fact that I'm glad it wasn't ME living thru that, I thought it was awfully funny - he's a good writer.

When we flew CLT-LGW and back, my husband was pulled aside at every security checkpoint and every gate - every single one. By the 3rd time, we switched carryons, so he would have the smaller one and thus give them less to look thru.. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Brilliant writing! It appeals to my sense of humor. At least this guy has a sense of humor, to many people would have simply ranted abd raved about the injustice of it all.

------------------
Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else.

I like everything you've said and I like the way you've said it, quite factually and clearly. Further, I would like to include before, "if that's the case, why do we even bother having the security check??," or do you imply that the current random searches aren't working?

svpii just gave one example of a random check that didn't work: switch carry-on with someone and your bag is on the plane. From my own experience I've been able to tell the screener that you don't need to open THAT zipper, it's just to expand the bag. I have a few other possible scenarios, but nobody has mentioned them, and I won't be the one who gives security new ideas.