FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   Practical Travel Safety and Security Issues (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/practical-travel-safety-security-issues-686/)
-   -   Security & Complacency (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/practical-travel-safety-security-issues/1185381-security-complacency.html)

LuvAirFrance Feb 17, 11 10:23 pm

How about a "no carryon policy"?

jbart74 Feb 17, 11 10:39 pm


Originally Posted by LuvAirFrance (Post 15886787)
How about a "no carryon policy"?

We can debate a "no carryon policy" all day long. It wouldn't have stopped the Moscow bombing. Some A**hole took a bomb to the part of the airport where people meet arriving passengers just outside of the secure area. Then he blew it up when a bunch of people were around.

Get it? Please see my previous post for a sarcastic view on how to stop this in the future.

Darkumbra Feb 17, 11 11:20 pm


Originally Posted by idriveuride (Post 15885940)
With the recent extremely sad events in Moscow we should pause and support security initiatives of our nation.

We forget that events such as these have happened MANY times throughout the world .. Rome, Vienna, Madrid, Glasgow immediately come to mind. Yet it remains shocking as it is "over there", not here.

We should be proactive (versus reactive) and develop a broader and stronger perimeter strategy to protect our airports and both domestic travelers and visitors to our nation.

Let the flaming begin; but, there needs to be a more focused approach to our security. Security must balance, not take a back seat, to convenience. Yes, travel is a business and the fiscal interest of air carriers, airports, vendors, passengers and business should be accountable; but, we need to learn from history. Incidents cost $$$$ millions and get on CNN, which is why there will always be incidents.

Recent events remind me how we were so "shocked" about 9/11 hijackings and flat out forgot that just 10-20 years earlier hijackings and bombings happened just about every week. Yet, security remains reactive.

I remember back in the mid-90's working front line at airports and refusing to transport the work materials of several construction company employees and tradesmith. Eventually it was brought to my attention that it was acceptable to transport accelerants, torches, bits and get this . . . box cutters as carry on.

I was simply amazed as just 10 years earlier, while a Flight Attendant at TWA, if we saw a loose screw in the lav during a pre-flight inspection, the entire plane was stripped apart. I was in ATH on the 747SP when our 727 From FCO enroute to ATH was bombed.

We get complacent and elements of society will continue to capitalize on this.

Immediate "simple" efforts that TSA should put in place:

1. Separating checkpoints to eliminate cross over over baggage and screening. Passengers should accompany their own luggage and be within a dedicated team of screener.

2. Install a wall at the checkpoints so that passengers in line cannot see the actual screening process (like FRA and parts of AMS), this reduces the ability to "scout", establish patterns and track/identify employees. This also increase the ability of screener to focus on the people in their zone.

3. Similar to #1, screening should be compartmentalized to teams. One line is walled/separated from the next and isolated so that the 3 (only 3) TSA personnel can focus on the passengers in their "zone". Any more that 3 agents only serves to distract the process. In addition, the person who is assigned to read the imaging technology should be better isolated to reduce distraction and eliminate identification.

4. Eliminate "socializing" on the clock. The chatter that goes on at the screening checkpoints would bot be tolerated in any workplace and distracts from the mission. I have been through dozens of checkpoints where it was more like hazing at a frat house that securing our airports and country.

5. Place "roaming" agents in the terminal building. Extend the security presence beyond the checkpoint where the exposure to challenge or breach could be as small as 30-60 seconds. Being that we currently had 20 agents running 2-3 checkpoints, these procedures could effectively be operated with existing resources.

Expanded presence tom the point a person enters the terminal, adoption of broader training and identification methods. This will not eliminate challenges; but, it would substantially reduce them. Randomly screen, help with directions, be proactive, positive and AWARE.

Likely the single strongest element to secure of airports will have the greatest resistence, limit carry on luggage. Mandating one carry-on would make the greatest single impact to security.

Further efforts should address the security of our terminals and discussion of bringing security to the door should begin in earnest. Sterile terminals should have been a project 2000, not a project 2020.

It is WAY too easy to breach our present system. Combine this with our mentality to eventually develop complacency and further erode efforts as they become inconvenient and you begin to see the nexus of a new 9/11.

Not being a killjoy . . . just reflecting on the pattern of history.

Most, if not everyone, reading this likely complains about shoes, laptops, sweaters, water bottles and all the procedures currently in place without taking pause that the clock is ticking toward the next "CNN" moment.

If you wish to live in a state perpetual quivering fear? Then that is your choice. However? I much prefer to weigh the various risks of living - when the risk of being killed by a terrorist becomes greater than the risk of being killed in a car accident on the way TO the airport? Then i'll consider appropriate ways to respond.

The goal of a terrorist is to terrorize. With you they have obviously succeeded. I am still untouched by the fear you've embraced.

So? In response to your plea for more fear? I respectfully decline to participate.

InkUnderNails Feb 18, 11 4:13 am

We must each eventually learn that our liberty is the result of acceptance of a certain amount of risk in our lives. If we wish to have liberty, we either mitigate that risk or we submit to an authority that can promise our security, but they can never perfectly provide it. Every layer added by autoritarian control is a dimishment of the liberty of which we were endowed. Some of us willingly do that as we do not wish to do the work or diligence to mitigate the risk. Others accept the risk as part of our liberty and accept the consequences. Why? Because, in the end we beleive that the liberty to engage in commece, to have free association, to enter into contracts among private parties, to speak with freedom, to be secure in our person and property has a value far in excess of our blood and treasure, time, and effort that must be expended to maintain that liberty.

Caradoc Feb 18, 11 4:23 am


Originally Posted by InkUnderNails (Post 15887665)
We must each eventually learn that our liberty is the result of acceptance of a certain amount of risk in our lives.

Codified as Niven's Law #4:

"F S = k. The product of Freedom and Security is a constant. To gain more freedom of thought and/or action, you must give up some security, and vice versa."

VH-RMD Feb 18, 11 4:47 am

I am opening a bubble wrap couturier, I invite all chicken little's to peruse my range of casual and formal wear.

Guaranteed to protect you from the evil terrorist - if by chance you find yourself on a flight which is blown up by the evil terrorist, just call for an instant refund....

NPF Feb 18, 11 5:39 am

I'm afraid the OP, in spite of his/her references to past decades, still has an adolescent frame of mind, as apparently he/she still believes in Captain America, SuperMan and others unfallible, uncorruptible, protectors of american virtue.

For people like the OP, it is a shame that the TSA isn't more like an idealised "League of Super Heroes", able to shield and protect America from the dangers of the barbarics from inside and outside.

The existence of an agency like the TSA, with the theatrical treatment of security it offers (as security for the minds of the public, vs security against real threats) is, once again, proof of how easy politicians can manipulate public opinion (and how eager they are to do it).

doober Feb 18, 11 5:42 am


Originally Posted by idriveuride (Post 15885940)
With the recent extremely sad events in Moscow we should pause and support security initiatives of our nation.

We forget that events such as these have happened MANY times throughout the world .. Rome, Vienna, Madrid, Glasgow immediately come to mind. Yet it remains shocking as it is "over there", not here.

We should be proactive (versus reactive) and develop a broader and stronger perimeter strategy to protect our airports and both domestic travelers and visitors to our nation.

Let the flaming begin; but, there needs to be a more focused approach to our security. Security must balance, not take a back seat, to convenience. Yes, travel is a business and the fiscal interest of air carriers, airports, vendors, passengers and business should be accountable; but, we need to learn from history. Incidents cost $$$$ millions and get on CNN, which is why there will always be incidents.

Recent events remind me how we were so "shocked" about 9/11 hijackings and flat out forgot that just 10-20 years earlier hijackings and bombings happened just about every week. Yet, security remains reactive.

I remember back in the mid-90's working front line at airports and refusing to transport the work materials of several construction company employees and tradesmith. Eventually it was brought to my attention that it was acceptable to transport accelerants, torches, bits and get this . . . box cutters as carry on.

I was simply amazed as just 10 years earlier, while a Flight Attendant at TWA, if we saw a loose screw in the lav during a pre-flight inspection, the entire plane was stripped apart. I was in ATH on the 747SP when our 727 From FCO enroute to ATH was bombed.

We get complacent and elements of society will continue to capitalize on this.

Immediate "simple" efforts that TSA should put in place:

1. Separating checkpoints to eliminate cross over over baggage and screening. Passengers should accompany their own luggage and be within a dedicated team of screener.

2. Install a wall at the checkpoints so that passengers in line cannot see the actual screening process (like FRA and parts of AMS), this reduces the ability to "scout", establish patterns and track/identify employees. This also increase the ability of screener to focus on the people in their zone.

3. Similar to #1, screening should be compartmentalized to teams. One line is walled/separated from the next and isolated so that the 3 (only 3) TSA personnel can focus on the passengers in their "zone". Any more that 3 agents only serves to distract the process. In addition, the person who is assigned to read the imaging technology should be better isolated to reduce distraction and eliminate identification.

4. Eliminate "socializing" on the clock. The chatter that goes on at the screening checkpoints would bot be tolerated in any workplace and distracts from the mission. I have been through dozens of checkpoints where it was more like hazing at a frat house that securing our airports and country.

5. Place "roaming" agents in the terminal building. Extend the security presence beyond the checkpoint where the exposure to challenge or breach could be as small as 30-60 seconds. Being that we currently had 20 agents running 2-3 checkpoints, these procedures could effectively be operated with existing resources.

Expanded presence tom the point a person enters the terminal, adoption of broader training and identification methods. This will not eliminate challenges; but, it would substantially reduce them. Randomly screen, help with directions, be proactive, positive and AWARE.

Likely the single strongest element to secure of airports will have the greatest resistence, limit carry on luggage. Mandating one carry-on would make the greatest single impact to security.

Further efforts should address the security of our terminals and discussion of bringing security to the door should begin in earnest. Sterile terminals should have been a project 2000, not a project 2020.

It is WAY too easy to breach our present system. Combine this with our mentality to eventually develop complacency and further erode efforts as they become inconvenient and you begin to see the nexus of a new 9/11.

Not being a killjoy . . . just reflecting on the pattern of history.

Most, if not everyone, reading this likely complains about shoes, laptops, sweaters, water bottles and all the procedures currently in place without taking pause that the clock is ticking toward the next "CNN" moment.

Perhaps you should talk with a professional about your paranoia.

P.S. Your screen name says a great deal about you. You want to be in total control.

lostinthewash Feb 18, 11 5:48 am

I must admit, when I have to fly, it's all about me :) It doesn't occur to me that I might get blown up that day. I'm more focussed on how can I pack to get through security most easily, when should I leave to avoid rush hour traffic, how fast can I get to the lounge, will my upgrade come through ...

On the plane during take off and landing I may have a fleeting thought about the skill of the pilot, the weather, or the technicians who service the plane, but it's never "is this the last hour of my life". And it's never scouting out other passengers for suspicious behavior (and what do I know about suspicious behavior anyway?)

Life is already too short - you can't stress about the things you can't control.

idriveuride Feb 18, 11 8:23 am


Originally Posted by doober (Post 15887922)
Perhaps you should talk with a professional about your paranoia.

P.S. Your screen name says a great deal about you. You want to be in total control.

Ha ha, I love it :D

For those who actually "read" my post instead of skimming will note many key things:

1. It involves greater privacy for travellers (compartmentalize the process)

2. It involves a reduction of screening personnel (lowers costs)

3. It suggests tiered screening so that focus is where it is needed most

4. It increases the professionalism of the personnel and eliminates the tollerance of the frat house environment at some airports

Secuity needs to be these three things, offer greater privacy, ensure cost effectiveness and focus on the potential threat elements.

Security is also a state of mind. Protection is never 100%; but, an environemnt of safety and professionalism is essential.


Me you ask????

When I hear hate, I encourage tollerance

I learn about the world by experiencing the world, meeting people & culture

When I see inefficiencies, I look for answers not excuses


My handle???

I operate an aluminum transportation device

I Drive . . U Ride :)

idriveuride Feb 18, 11 8:26 am

Carry On
 

Originally Posted by LuvAirFrance (Post 15886787)
How about a "no carryon policy"?

Ha! That would not go far :)

I would like to see a universal policy; i.e. the Asia & European standard applied here. I just spent weeks traveling through Africa and Europe on full flights with largely empty overhead bins. I did not have trouble stowing my bag until I hit EWR for my flights home.

Of course I expect to be flammed on that :)

exbayern Feb 18, 11 8:34 am


Originally Posted by idriveuride (Post 15888659)
Ha ha, I love it :D

For those who actually "read" my post instead of skimming will note many key things:

I read your post several times and still have difficulty following your argument. And it is not an issue with English skills on my side.

Most legacy carriers in Europe and several in Asia permit one carryon plus one personal item. There may be restrictions on weight, but one is still permitted to carry two pieces on board in most of the world. The differences however are enforcement of the rules, generally quicker checked baggage retrieval, and fewer checked bag fees.

And many of us here who feel strongly about balancing risk have lost friends and family in terrorist acts or under totalitarian regimes in past. We don't however use that as an excuse to give up rights and freedoms.

tev9999 Feb 18, 11 8:40 am


Originally Posted by idriveuride (Post 15885940)
With the recent extremely sad events in Moscow we should pause and support security initiatives of our nation.

We forget that events such as these have happened MANY times throughout the world .. Rome, Vienna, Madrid, Glasgow immediately come to mind. Yet it remains shocking as it is "over there", not here.

Rep. Giffords shooting in AZ
Oklahoma Federal Building bombing
Anthrax attacks
DC Snipers
Columbine High School
Fort Hood Shooting
WTC truck bombing
1996 ATL Olympics bombing

The reaction to those and many others did not result in a trampling of the Constitution and waste of billions upon billions of dollars. As long as there are people, there will be people that want to do harm to others.

Screening is not the answer - intellegence is. If a bomb gets to the airport, or on the subway, or in a car, it is already too late. Take half the funding of TSA and give it to intellegence agencies to disrupt plots (within the bounds of the Constitution) BEFORE the bomb even gets made. Take the other half and install guardrails on thousands of miles of rural highways to prevent median cross-over collisions. That will save thousands more lives than the TSA ever will.

eastport Feb 18, 11 8:46 am


Originally Posted by idriveuride (Post 15885940)
2. Install a wall at the checkpoints so that passengers in line cannot see the actual screening process (like FRA and parts of AMS), this reduces the ability to "scout", establish patterns and track/identify employees. This also increase the ability of screener to focus on the people in their zone.

Didn't we just have several stories about screeners that had stolen large amounts of money during the screening process? That's a proven outcome, while stopping terrorists has not happened.

The idea that having semi-secrets can stop terrorists from learning the system is absurd. Yes, you make it opaque to travelers. But anyone that wants to learn about it can do so with only modest effort. And it won't be with obvious video cameras at the checkpoint.

exbayern Feb 18, 11 8:51 am

I am frankly confused by the 'wall at FRA' idea. Does the OP mean the semi opaque glass that one passes to enter the screening area? That is certainly not unique to FRA or to Germany.

But then does OP think that a terrorist is going to stand outside the screening area, observing, and use that information as the basis for an attack? More effective would be to target the very long lines which seem to form at US airports for screening. With waits of 45 minutes or over an hour, those lines are full of passengers in a very compressed area.

Allow screeners to focus on their zone? If you have professionals, they don't need a wall to do that. Where in the world does one see groups of screeners standing around, talking loudly, sometimes making inappropriate remarks, and generally chit chatting without paying attention to the screening area?

Building a wall isn't the solution. One has to fly exactly once to be able to observe the screening. TSA would be better to reduce the lines to levels found elsewhere.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 7:13 am.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.