do i think any of "this" has made it "safer"? absolutely not. pathetic attempt at best, if only because the public won't accept (at the moment) what's really called for

What is really called for?

I know of two airports/airlines in the world that seem to have security figured out. Amsterdam Schipol and El AL. They are the model for running safe airports/airlines. I don't know how they are different than other airlines/airports, and maybe that is good from a security standpoint. I imagine they would be willing to share their secrets with the US govt though. Whether we would be willing to listen and actually put in effective security though is yet another question.

... where it belongs

thezipper
NWA Moderator

Opinions vary, but here's mine: I have been on many, many flights as an armed LEO, but I have only been on one flight where I was absolutely certain that the flight was absolutely safe from an outside threat. Without getting into too much detail, there had been a specific threat made against the flight and it had been deemed as a credible threat. The additional activities that took place to ensure its safety before the domestic flight left were incredibly time consuming and expensive. Every single piece of checked and carry-on baggage was sent through explosive detection equipment and a special machine brought in by US Customs, then all the luggage was subject to K-9 search and then hand searched, twice. Every single passenger was selected for secondary screening and gate screening. All cargo was similarly screened and the flight carried no mail. The airline searched the plane, then two K-9 teams searched it, then my team searched it. There were significant numbers of plain clothes LEO�s in the terminal, a special flight crew and cabin crews were flown in, there were an appropriate number of very well armed federal agents on board the flight, and there were teams scouring the area surrounding the airport. The extra man-hours and security costs were enormous, but it was as safe as any flight could be in this post 9/11 world.

This flight took place just a couple of months after 9/11, but the passengers were still incredibly upset with the extra �intrusive� security. They were told that it was a research/security project between the airline and the government. As I recall, the flight only left about an hour late and arrived pretty close to the scheduled time. The passengers did not even know about the �extra� tax dollars that were spent to keep them safe. I wish I had a tape recording or video of the comments they made to each other and to the flight crew as they boarded the flight. Words like �communist� and �nazi� were used over and over. I was more worried about a passenger mutiny than I was about a terrorist event at that point.

Long story short, there is no way the American public will spend the money or submit itself to be inconvenienced and intruded upon to the extent necessary to guarantee the safety of every commercial flight, because if you want absolute safety from those who wish to do you harm that�s what�s called for.

so true. ^

Exactly. The Supreme Court even dealt with a case back in the 70's and part of their decision made emphasis of the fact that something called "safe" does not equate to being "risk free".

So we do the things that make sense and get rid of those that don't and make them consistent throughout the system. Only time will tell

I'm glad you shared that story, because it gives me hope that there will be a point at which the public will rise up against this pointless self-flagellation we call screening.

For what it's worth, there were still about a bazillion ways for the flight you described to be brought down by terrorists. Ground-launched missiles, in-terrorist-cahoots pilot, belt nooses and other improvised weapons, and on and on.

Look, screening is a feel-good show. Let's spend what we have to on reassuring theater for grandma and grandpa Flyonceayears, and quit it with the invasive measures that put passengers at risk every time they pass a checkpoint.

http://www.travelskills.com/tktarchive/2004/sep.htm

SAFETY AND SECURITY NEWS

CHANGES AT SCREENING CHECKPOINTS. With colder weather on the way, the TSA announced that all passengers must now remove their coats before going through metal detectors. Also, the AJC says that the TSA has asked ATL officials to remove the airport security shoe detectors that light up if you have metal in your shoes. Apparently, the shoe detectors were designed by screeners, but aren't good enough for the TSA which required their removal because they were "not certified." (Sounds to us like a politically connected company has cozied up to the TSA and will soon be the sole�no pun! -- supplier of such devices. Umm-hmm.)

I went thru DEN on Fri. They required the shoes come off as they said they were looking for other things than just metal. I'm not sure what that might be, but it was very clear that everyone take off their shooze.

As bdschobel once commented: "protect the empire, protect the empire".

Yes we will. The TSA has done a great job of social engineering. The latest move is to force compliance with 100% shoe removal under threat of an automatic secondary grope with a full torso pat-down. Absolutely brilliant!

Other examples:
1. How many people have gone out and bought "TSA-approved" locks?
2. How many people do you see wearing those silly things around their necks containing their IDs and boarding pass?
3. How many people willingly allow their vehicles to be searched with no probable cause at airport entrances or at public streets surrounding the US Capitol?
4. How many people allow themselves to be intimidated because they decided to take a picture of something?
5. How many people went out and bought mass quantities of duct tape and plastic sheeting?

The "I've got nothing to hide" crowd is live & well in the USA.

As a former First Lady used to say, "Just say 'No!'"

...and if you refuse not only do you get the secondary screening, but they force you to take them off on the other side of the X-ray, toss them on the belt, and make you do the dance for the guy with the wand...

So you end up walking barefoot anyway, screened for no reason other than being "uncooperative" and you've just wasted 5 more minutes. When they "recommend" something, I find it's better to comply, even if the recommendation is idiotic.

I don't know about others on this board, but I sit down and take off my shoes, and then politely refuse to be wanded until I have them back. I don't stand on dirty floors in my socks, period. I once had a screening supervisor try to tell me he was being "lenient" because technically I'm not supposed to be able to touch my possessions (shoes included, apparently) until I've been cleared.

If they ever really pull this BS on me I'd rather sit there until an LEO comes, just for the principle of it.